SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2016
The effectiveness of intra-aortic balloon pump for myocardial infarction in patients with or without cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Percutaneous coronary intervention assisted by invasive mechanical ventilation and intra-aortic balloon pump for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: Retrospective cohort study and meta-analyses.Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences · 2020Pooled it
- Circulatory Support for High-Risk Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Coronary Interventions: Where is the Evidence?The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2025Review
- Role of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute MI Management.US cardiology · 2023Review
- Transcatheter closure of ventricular septal rupture with prolonged support of intra-aortic balloon pump after primary PCI: a case report.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2021Article
- Factors Associated with the Prognosis of Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2021Article
- Management of Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation: Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation or Epinephrine?JACC. Basic to translational science · 2017Article
- Therapeutic Advances in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock.American journal of therapeuticsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConflicting reports on the efficacy of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) incited us to evaluate the utility of IABP in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
methodsRandomized clinical trials comparing patients, who received IABP vs. control (no IABP) during PCI, were hand-searched from MEDLINE, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases using the terms "intra-aortic balloon pump, percutaneous coronary intervention, myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome". Mortality rate (30-day and 6-month mortality) was the primary outcome, while the secondary outcomes included 30-day bleeding rate, reinfarction rate, revascularization rate and stroke rate.
resultsPooled results of the seven trials identified indicated that the 30-day and 6-month mortality rate were not significantly different between the IABP and control groups. However, in patients with MI, but without cardiogenic shock (CS), IABP was associated with lower odds of 30-day mortality (OR = 0.35, p = 0.015) and 6-month mortality (OR = 0.41, p = 0.020). The pooled results of 30-day bleeding rate was not significantly higher in patients with IABP than the control group, but for the patients with high risk PCI without CS, it was higher in patients with IABP than the control group (OR = 1.58, p = 0.009). The re-infarction, revascularization, and the stroke rate at 30 days of follow-up were not significantly different between the two groups.
conclusionsThe present results do not favor the clinical utility of IABP in patients suffering high-risk PCI without CS and AMI complicated with CS. However, in patients with AMI, but without CS, IABP may reduce the 30-day and 6-month mortality rate.
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.