Circulation reports · 2026
Impella Support as a "Bridge to Nowhere": Ethical and Clinical Considerations for End-of-Life Care After Acute Myocardial Infarction.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hori Koichiro, Arai Riku, Sasaki Jun, Nagao Tetsuro, Migita Suguru, Kojima Keisuke, Okumura Yasuo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Impella and other percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are increasingly used for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Although they provide rapid hemodynamic stabilization, some patients do not achieve myocardial recovery and are not candidates for heart transplantation or durable MCS. In such situations, Impella may become a "bridge to nowhere", raising ethical and clinical questions about continuation or withdrawal.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We present illustrative cases of acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock managed with Impella and reviewed through multidisciplinary ethical deliberation. In Case 1, support was defined as a time-limited trial with a predefined exit strategy, followed by transition to palliative-focused care. In Case 2, escalation from Impella CP to Impella 5.5 stabilized hemodynamics and enabled recovery of decision-making capacity; however, the patient declined heart transplantation and long-term MCS, resulting in elective withdrawal of Impella support and initiation of end-of-life care.
CONCLUSIONS: When recovery or durable therapy is not achievable or acceptable, Impella can unintentionally function as a "bridge to nowhere". Multidisciplinary deliberation and early integration of palliative care are essential for goal-concordant withdrawal decisions.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We present illustrative cases of acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock managed with Impella and reviewed through multidisciplinary ethical deliberation. In Case 1, support was defined as a time-limited trial with a predefined exit strategy, followed by transition to palliative-focused care. In Case 2, escalation from Impella CP to Impella 5.5 stabilized hemodynamics and enabled recovery of decision-making capacity; however, the patient declined heart transplantation and long-term MCS, resulting in elective withdrawal of Impella support and initiation of end-of-life care.
CONCLUSIONS: When recovery or durable therapy is not achievable or acceptable, Impella can unintentionally function as a "bridge to nowhere". Multidisciplinary deliberation and early integration of palliative care are essential for goal-concordant withdrawal decisions.