The Impella family of devices works by drawing blood from the left ventricle through an inlet area near the pump’s tip and expelling it into the ascending aorta, providing up to several liters per minute of forward flow while simultaneously unloading the failing ventricle. The pump motor and bearing assembly sit within the blood stream, and heat and mechanical stress make that region a nidus for thrombus formation. To prevent clot from accumulating around the motor, the device continuously flushes a sterile purge solution through the narrow clearance space between the rotor and the housing; the solution then exits into the circulation. Because this purge fluid is delivered directly into the patient’s blood, whatever is dissolved in it becomes part of the patient’s systemic drug exposure. Historically, the manufacturer’s instructions have called for heparin to be added to the purge solution, so the purge line acts as a continuous low-dose heparin infusion on top of whatever systemic anticoagulation the patient is already receiving.

That arrangement is straightforward when Impella is used alone, but it becomes genuinely complicated when ECMO is added. Patients on ECPELLA support are typically managed with systemic anticoagulation to protect the oxygenator and tubing of the extracorporeal circuit, guided by protocols such as those issued by the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization, whose 2021 adult and pediatric anticoagulation guidelines consolidated contemporary practice. Layering a heparin-containing purge on top of systemic heparin, or on top of an alternative agent such as bivalirudin, creates a second, parallel route of anticoagulant delivery whose contribution to the total dose is not independently measured by standard monitoring. Clinicians therefore face a balancing act: enough anticoagulation to protect two devices and a circuit, but not so much that bleeding, the most common complication of mechanical circulatory support, becomes life-threatening. Some centers have responded by removing heparin from the purge bag entirely, running the purge with anticoagulant-free solutions such as 5% dextrose in water or sodium bicarbonate, and relying on systemic anticoagulation to protect the pump.

The question is whether an anticoagulant-free purge actually protects the device. The purge flow rate is titrated to maintain a specified pressure gradient across the purge circuit, which serves as a proxy for patency of the tiny channels that bathe the motor; if those channels clot, purge pressure rises, the purge rate climbs to compensate, and in the worst case the pump malfunctions. Prior single-center experiences, including analyses of heparin 25 units per milliliter purge solutions and separate evaluations of bicarbonate-based purge solutions in patients with cardiogenic shock supported by Impella, have suggested that non-standard purge strategies can be workable, but the data remain limited and the patients most likely to receive ECPELLA, those in profound cardiogenic shock, have been underrepresented. The new study by Nathaniel J. Martin, Christoph G. S. Nabzdyk, Scott D. Nei, Andrew N. Rosenbaum, Troy G. Seelhammer, and Patrick M. Wieruszewski was designed to examine exactly this gap: Impella device function in patients receiving combined ECMO and Impella support, stratified by whether their purge solution contained heparin or not.

The design was observational and modest in scale, and the authors are explicit about its limits. The team identified 25 patients supported with ECPELLA at their institution. Fourteen of these patients received an anticoagulant-free purge solution, either 5% dextrose or sodium bicarbonate, while the remaining 11 received a heparin-containing purge solution. The median duration of ECPELLA support was five days, a duration long enough for purge-related thrombosis to become clinically apparent if it were going to occur. The primary observation of interest was Impella device malfunction attributable to purge failure, the outcome that would most directly signal that an anticoagulant-free purge was inadequate to keep the motor housing clear. Ethical approval for the study came from the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board, with a waiver of informed consent, consistent with the retrospective review of clinical care.

The headline finding is stark in its simplicity. Across the entire cohort, the only episode of Impella device malfunction occurred in a patient in the heparin-containing group. No patient in the anticoagulant-free group experienced a purge-related device failure during their course of support, and device longevity appeared acceptable in both groups. Read at face value, the result suggests that dextrose- or bicarbonate-based purge solutions, paired with systemic anticoagulation, did not compromise the mechanical integrity of the Impella during a median of five days of combined support. In an environment where every additional unit of heparin delivered through the purge line potentially shifts a critically ill patient’s hemostatic balance, a strategy that removes that infusion without evident device harm is clinically meaningful, even if the evidence behind it is still thin.

The authors themselves are careful not to overstate the case, and their caution is warranted for reasons that go to the heart of how small clinical studies work. With only 25 patients and a low overall event rate, the study cannot exclude a modest increase in device malfunction risk associated with anticoagulant-free purge solutions; the single malfunction in the heparin group, far from indicting heparin, illustrates precisely how noisy such comparisons are at this scale. Bleeding outcomes, thromboembolic events, and hemolysis, all of which matter enormously in this population, are not the focus of the abstract-level reporting, and confounding by indication is a live concern: the choice of purge solution likely reflected evolving institutional practice and individual patient characteristics rather than random assignment. The conclusion the authors draw is correspondingly measured. Given the low event rate and the apparent maintenance of acceptable device longevity, they write, use of anticoagulant-free purge solutions alongside systemic anticoagulation in ECPELLA patients may be reasonable, but the strategy requires validation in an appropriately powered study.

Even so, the study contributes to a broader and increasingly visible conversation about how anticoagulation should be managed across the growing arsenal of temporary circulatory support devices. Pharmacotherapy reviews have called for optimization of anticoagulation in Impella-supported patients, noting the tension between manufacturer recommendations, center-specific protocols, and the absence of definitive trial evidence. Comparisons of bivalirudin versus heparin for systemic anticoagulation during ECMO, published in Critical Care Medicine by members of the same Mayo group, reflect the same underlying effort to rationalize hemostatic management in extracorporeal support. The purge solution sits at an unusual intersection within this landscape: it is simultaneously a device-maintenance fluid and a systemic drug delivery route, and it is frequently overlooked in discussions that focus on the more visible systemic anticoagulants. Recognizing the purge line as a pharmacologic exposure, and studying it as one, is a conceptual step forward for the field.

For the bedside intensivist, pharmacist, and perfusionist managing an ECPELLA patient tonight, the practical takeaway is not a new protocol but a new data point in an evolving conversation. Anticoagulant-free purge solutions, whether 5% dextrose or sodium bicarbonate, have now been used in a consecutive series of ECPELLA patients at a high-volume center without evident compromise of device function over a median of five days of support. That observation will not end the debate, and no one should abandon heparinized purge on the strength of 25 patients, but it legitimizes the strategy as a subject for the large, prospectively designed comparative study it deserves. Until such a study exists, the choice of purge solution will remain a matter of institutional protocol and clinical judgment, exercised within the same delicate balance that defines all of extracorporeal support: keeping the blood fluid enough to survive the machine, and the patient solid enough to survive the bleeding. This small study suggests the balance can be struck without heparin in the purge bag, and that alone makes it worth the field’s attention.

Subject of Research: Impella purge solution strategy and device function in patients receiving combined ECMO and Impella (ECPELLA) support

Article Title: Impella purge solutions in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Article References: Martin, N. J., Nabzdyk, C. G. S., Nei, S. D., Rosenbaum, A. N., Seelhammer, T. G., & Wieruszewski, P. M. (2026). Impella purge solutions in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Journal of Artificial Organs, 29(4), Article 64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10047-026-01595-2

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s10047-026-01595-2

Keywords: Impella, ECMO, ECPELLA, purge solution, anticoagulation, heparin, mechanical circulatory support, cardiogenic shock, left ventricular unloading, device malfunction, critical care, ventricular assist device

The clinical picture on presentation was dire. Acute severe mitral regurgitation had produced extreme respiratory failure despite maximal ventilatory support: while breathing pure oxygen, the patient’s arterial blood showed a pH of 7.144, a partial pressure of oxygen of only 48 mmHg, and a partial pressure of carbon dioxide of 101 mmHg. Those numbers describe profound, life-threatening hypoxemia and hypercapnia, the biochemical signature of lungs so waterlogged and failing that gas exchange had nearly collapsed. Fulminant pulmonary edema of this kind, driven by the sudden backflow of blood through an incompetent mitral valve, typically leaves clinicians with a narrow and dangerous window in which to act.

The standard emergency answer for such patients is often veno-arterial ECMO, in which blood is drained from the venous system, oxygenated outside the body, and returned to the arterial circulation, simultaneously supporting the heart and lungs. But the authors highlight a well-recognized paradox: VA-ECMO can worsen pulmonary congestion in patients with a failing left ventricle. By returning oxygenated blood to the aorta, it increases the afterload against which the damaged left ventricle must pump, which can push blood backward into the lungs and aggravate the very edema the therapy is meant to buy time against. Recent literature, including a 2024 position paper on dual-circulation physiology during venoarterial ECMO and multicenter data linking left ventricular unloading to lower mortality in cardiogenic shock, has sharpened attention on this problem and on strategies to relieve the loaded ventricle.

The surgical team proceeded with emergency mitral valve replacement under cardiopulmonary bypass. When the operation ended, however, the heart could not be weaned from the bypass machine: severe pulmonary edema and post-cardiotomy shock conspired to keep the ventricle too weak and the lungs too compromised for independent circulation. Rather than defaulting to VA-ECMO, the surgeons made a deliberate split decision. They implanted an Impella 5.5, an axial-flow catheter-mounted pump, directly into the ascending aorta through a prosthetic graft, positioning it across the aortic valve so it could draw blood out of the left ventricle and deliver it antegrade into the systemic circulation. Then they added veno-venous ECMO, which drains deoxygenated blood from the venous side and returns it oxygenated to the veins, supporting only the lungs.

The physiological logic of this combination is what makes the case compelling. The Impella 5.5 provides left ventricular unloading and forward systemic flow, reducing the pressure that would otherwise be transmitted back into the pulmonary vasculature, while VV-ECMO takes over gas exchange without adding any arterial afterload at all. In effect, the circulation and the respiration were decoupled and managed independently, avoiding the differential hypoxemia problem known as harlequin syndrome, in which poorly oxygenated blood ejected by the native heart mixes with oxygenated ECMO return in patients on VA-ECMO. The authors argue that this decoupled strategy may be an effective option for selected patients suffering concomitant severe respiratory and circulatory failure, particularly when VA-ECMO risks compounding pulmonary congestion.

The early postoperative course was rocky but revealing. The patient initially required substantial vasoactive and inotropic drug support to maintain blood pressure, a reflection of both the stunned post-cardiotomy myocardium and the inflammatory burden of prolonged critical illness. Serum lactate, a biochemical marker of inadequate tissue perfusion, peaked transiently at 10.9 mmol/L on postoperative day one, a level indicating significant anaerobic metabolism. Crucially, however, systemic perfusion was maintained throughout, and as the ventricle recovered, the team was able to stabilize the circulation on Impella-mediated antegrade flow alone, without ever converting to VA-ECMO or the hybrid V-AV configuration that many centers would have reached for in a similar situation.

Respiratory recovery followed a parallel and equally instructive trajectory. Under VV-ECMO-supported lung rest, with the membrane lung shouldering the work of oxygenation and carbon dioxide removal, and under an intensive diuretic regimen to strip away the excess lung water, the patient’s respiratory function improved progressively. Bilateral pulmonary opacities on imaging, the radiographic shadow of the edema, gradually cleared. VV-ECMO was removed on postoperative day three, a remarkably short run that suggests the lung injury, while fulminant, was largely hydrostatic and reversible once the circulatory derangement was corrected. The Impella 5.5 was explanted on postoperative day six as ventricular function recovered.

The outcome was a full survival: the patient was discharged on postoperative day 46 without any neurological sequelae, an outcome that would have been considered improbable at the moment of presentation, when his blood gases were incompatible with sustained life on conventional support. For a case report, the message is less about a single heroic save than about a reproducible physiological principle. The authors position the combination as a way to sidestep the afterload penalty of VA-ECMO while still providing both pump function and gas exchange, drawing on established techniques for direct aortic Impella implantation that allow the device to be placed surgically with secure fixation.

The report also underscores how rapidly the mechanical support landscape is evolving. The Impella 5.5, originally developed as a percutaneous left ventricular assist device for high-risk procedures and cardiogenic shock, is increasingly being combined with ECMO in creative configurations, and the literature now includes dedicated analyses of left ventricular decompression during VA-ECMO and reviews of the collision between native and device circulations. This case adds a new entry to that growing repertoire: instead of adding an Impella to unload a ventricle already supported by VA-ECMO, the team used the pump as the sole circulatory engine and paired it with purely respiratory extracorporeal support. The authors are careful to frame the approach as appropriate for selected patients, and a single case cannot establish superiority over conventional strategies. But for clinicians confronting the double failure of heart and lungs, particularly when pulmonary edema makes VA-ECMO counterproductive, the case provides a concrete, technically documented template. It suggests that thinking about circulatory and respiratory failure as separable problems, rather than as a single indication for one device, can turn a nearly certain death into a discharge home with an intact brain.

Subject of Research: Combined veno-venous ECMO and direct aortic Impella 5.5 support for emergency mitral valve replacement in acute severe mitral regurgitation with fulminant pulmonary edema

Article Title: Combined veno-venous ECMO and direct aortic impella 5.5 support enabling emergency mitral valve replacement in acute severe mitral regurgitation with fulminant pulmonary edema

Article References: Combined veno-venous ECMO and direct aortic impella 5.5 support enabling emergency mitral valve replacement in acute severe mitral regurgitation with fulminant pulmonary edema. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10047-026-01592-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s10047-026-01592-5

Keywords: veno-venous ECMO, Impella 5.5, mechanical circulatory support, left ventricular unloading, differential hypoxemia, mitral regurgitation, pulmonary edema, cardiogenic shock, mitral valve replacement, cardiac surgery, Journal of Artificial Organs, case report