SynthesisPloS one2016
The Effects of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps on Mortality in Patients Undergoing High-Risk Coronary Revascularization: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Stenting Era.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Preoperative prophylactic insertion of intraaortic balloon pumps in critically ill patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery: a meta-analysis of RCTS.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Ideal Timing of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting After Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Venous Thromboembolism: Current Insights and Future Directions.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2024Review
- Management of Myocardial Infarction and the Role of Cardiothoracic Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Survival benefit of IABP in pre- versus post-primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with cardiogenic shock.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2024Article
- Circulatory support with larger volume intra-aortic balloon pump vs. standard volume or no-balloon pump during high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions. A randomised study.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2020Article
- Critical care medicine in Taiwan from 1997 to 2013 under National Health Insurance.Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Article
- When more is not better-appropriately excluding patients from mechanical circulatory support therapy.Annals of translational medicine · 2018Review
- Management of Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation: Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation or Epinephrine?JACC. Basic to translational science · 2017Article
- Clinical application of intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with cardiogenic shock during the perioperative period of cardiac surgery.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2017Article
- Efficacy of Intra-aortic Balloon Pump before versus after Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock from ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction.Chinese medical journal · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) have generally been used for patients undergoing high-risk mechanical coronary revascularization. However, there is still insufficient evidence to determine whether they can improve outcomes in reperfusion therapy patients, mainly by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). This study was designed to determine the difference between high-risk mechanical coronary revascularization with and without IABPs on mortality, by performing a meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials of the current era.
methodsPubmed and Embase databases were searched from inception to May 2015. Unpublished data were obtained from the investigators. Randomized clinical trials of IABP and non-IABP in high-risk coronary revascularization procedures (PCI or CABG) were included. In the case of PCI procedures, stents should be used in more than 80% of patients. Numbers of events at the short-term and long-term follow-up were extracted.
resultsA total of 12 randomized trials enrolling 2155 patients were included. IABPs did not significantly decrease short-term mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.66; 95% CI, 0.42-1.01), or long-term mortality (RR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.47-1.35), with low heterogeneity across the studies. The findings remained stable in patients with acute myocardial infarction with or without cardiogenic shock. But in high-risk CABG patients, IABP was associated with reduced mortality (71 events in 846 patients; RR 0.40; 95%CI 0.25-0.67).
conclusionIn patients undergoing high-risk coronary revascularization, IABP did not significantly decrease mortality. But high-risk CABG patients may be benefit from IABP. Rigorous criteria should be applied to the use of IABPs.
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.