ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2017
Clinical application of intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with cardiogenic shock during the perioperative period of cardiac surgery.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tendency of dynamic vasoactive and inotropic medications data as a robust predictor of mortality in patients with septic shock: An analysis of the MIMIC-IV database.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Comparison of the effect of 1:1 and 1:2 frequencies of intra-aortic balloon pump on hemodynamics of the patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery.ARYA atherosclerosis · 2022Article
- Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Catheter Insertion Using a Novel Left External Iliac Artery Approach in A Case of Chronic Heart Failure Due to Dilated Cardiomyopathy.The American journal of case reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) have saved many patients with cardiogenic shock during the perioperative period of cardiac surgery. However, the ideal insertion timing is controversial. In the present study, we aimed to optimize the insertion timing, in order to increase the survival rate of the patients. A total of 197 patients with cardiogenic shock during the perioperative period of cardiac surgery and implemented IABP from January 2011 to October 2015 were selected for the study. Patients were divided into five groups on the basis of application timing of IABP: 0-60, 61-120, 121-180, 181-240 and >240 min. The 30-day mortality, application rate of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of hospital stay and hospitalization charges were analyzed in the above groups. The risk factors related to mortality and the occurrence of IABP complications were also analyzed. The mortality in the 0-60, 61-120, 121-180, 181-240 and >240 min groups were 42.17, 36.6, 77.3, 72.7 and 79.3%, respectively. Earlier IABP insertion resulted in less patients receiving CRRT from acute renal failure and less daily hospitalization charges. However, the IABP application timing had no effect on indexes such as hospitalization duration, duration of mechanical ventilation and total hospitalization charges. Multifactor logistic regression analysis indicated that the independent risk factors of death in patients with cardiogenic shock during cardiac surgery were related to IABP support timing and vasoactive-inotropic score (VIS) before balloon insertion. In the first 120 min of cardiogenic shock during the perioperative period of cardiac surgery, IABP application decreased 30-day mortality. Mortality was related with VIS score of patients, which can be used to predict the prognosis of patients with cardiogenic shock.
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.