ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2015
[Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation. Do we still need it and if so when?].
Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation was for a long time considered to be an indispensable standard for support of drug therapy for all forms of acute left-sided cardiac failure and especially in cardiogenic shock due to infarction. The advantages of the system seemed to be obvious; however, many of the postulated effects on the hemodynamics, microcirculation and coronary perfusion could not be confirmed later in prospective studies. It was found that IABP had no influence on microcirculation disorders in cardiogenic shock due to infarction. In a meta-analysis on the application for acute myocardial infarction without shock, no effect was found on mortality. The benefit as adjunct therapy for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in cardiogenic shock due to infarction places a question mark over both IABP-SHOCK studies; however, in constellations without PCI the additional benefit of IABP cannot be excluded which is why the procedure could be an option in this situation.
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.