Trial reportClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2015
Economic implications of intra-aortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: an analysis from the IABP-SHOCK II-trial.
Trial report in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00491036 (Randomized Clinical Study of Intraaortic Balloon Pump Use in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Randomized Clinical Study of Intraaortic Balloon Pump Use in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Short-Term Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Coronary Syndrome with Cardiogenic Shock: Which Device to Choose?Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- The Price We Pay for Progression in Shock Care: Economic Burden, Accessibility, and Adoption of Shock-Teams and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
- Resource Utilization and Costs Associated With Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Myocardial Infarction: A Population-Based Cohort Study.JACC. Advances · 2024Article
- Effects of Escalating Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients With Worsening Cardiogenic Shock.Texas Heart Institute journal · 2022Article
- Long-term mortality and costs following use of Impella® for mechanical circulatory support: a population-based cohort study.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2020Article
- Management and predictors of outcome in unselected patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results from the Bremen STEMI Registry.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2018Observational
- Early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in patients with mild elevations of cardiac troponin.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2017Article
- [Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation. Do we still need it and if so when?].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Intra-aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial has demonstrated the safety of intra-aortic balloon (IABP) support in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock, but no beneficial effect on mortality. Currently, intra-aortic balloon pumping is still the most widely used support device. However, little is known about the economic implications associated with this device.
methodsData of 600 patients included in the IABP-SHOCK II trial (registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00491036) with follow-up at 30 days, 6 and 12 months were subjected to an economic analysis. Patients with cardiogenic shock complicating AMI were randomly assigned to IABP additionally to optimal medical therapy (OMT; n = 301) or OMT alone (n = 299) before early revascularization. Costs were calculated from the perspective of a German healthcare payer. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were performed using quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and reduction in New York Heart Association (NYHA) and Canadian Cardiac Society (CCS) class as effectiveness measures.
resultsThere was a statistically significant difference in overall costs between the IABP (33,155 ± 14,593 <euro>) and the control group (32,538 ± 14,031 <euro>, p < 0.00001). This was predominantly attributed to the IABP costs in the IABP (760 ± 174 <euro>) versus control group (64 ± 218 <euro>, p < 0.0001) whilst the intensive care unit costs did not differ between the groups (29,177 ± 12,013 <euro> and 29,401 ± 12,063 <euro>, p = 0.82). There was no significant difference in QALY or NYHA and CCS reduction, respectively (p = n.s.).
conclusionIABP support is associated with higher healthcare costs as compared to conservative treatment regimens. Clinically, IABP support cannot generally be recommended in AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock in the absence of a mortality benefit. However, economically considering the relatively little contribution to overall costs generated by IABP therapy it may still be considered if clinical scenarios with an IABP-induced benefit may be identified in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.