ArticleAmerican heart journal2018
Predictors of intra-aortic balloon pump hemodynamic failure in non-acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock.
Article in American heart journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05700617 (Myocardial Reserve in Advanced Heart Failure Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 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.
Myocardial Reserve in Advanced Heart Failure Patients
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evolving Evidence-Driven Strategies in Cardiogenic Shock Management.JACC. Advances · 2026Review
- Comparative Outcomes of Direct Impella Use vs. Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP)-to- Impella Escalation Strategy in Cardiogenic Shock: Insights from the National Inpatient Sample.Research square · 2026Article
- Special topics: heart failure-related cardiogenic shock, valvular heart disease and end-stage renal disease. Part 4 of the International Expert Opinion Series on Acute Heart Failure Management.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Association between mean hemodynamic variables during the first 24 h and outcomes in cardiogenic shock: identification of clinically relevant thresholds.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
- Non-acute myocardial infarction-associated cardiogenic shock in Hispanic patients: An analysis from the National Inpatient Sample Database.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2024Article
- Bridge to Life: Current Landscape of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Heart-Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Contemporary Evidence and Practice on Right Heart Catheterization in Patients with Acute or Chronic Heart Failure.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Utility of Cardiac Power Hemodynamic Measurements in the Evaluation and Risk Stratification of Cardiovascular Conditions.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Should We Be Using Aortic Pulsatility Index Over Cardiac Power Output in Heart Failure Cardiogenic Shock?Circulation. Heart failure · 2022Article
- Hemodynamics for the Heart Failure Clinician: A State-of-the-Art Review.Journal of cardiac failure · 2022Review
- Predicting survival in patients with acute decompensated heart failure complicated by cardiogenic shock.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2021Article
- Cardiogenic shock teams and centres: a contemporary review of multidisciplinary care for cardiogenic shock.ESC heart failure · 2021Review
- Current Landscape of Temporary Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Technology.US cardiology · 2021Review
- Mechanical Support in Early Cardiogenic Shock: What Is the Role of Intra-aortic Balloon Counterpulsation?Current heart failure reports · 2020Review
- Mechanical Left Ventricular Unloading to Reduce Infarct Size During Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insight from Preclinical and Clinical Studies.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo characterize patient profile and hemodynamic profile of those undergoing intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) for cardiogenic shock and define predictors of hemodynamic failure of IABP support.
backgroundClinical characteristics of IABP support in cardiogenic shock not related to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remain poorly characterized.
methodsWe retrospectively studied a cohort of 74 patients from 2010 to 2015 who underwent IABP insertion for cardiogenic shock complicating acute decompensated heart failure not due to AMI.
resultsIn the overall cohort, which consisted primarily of patients with chronic systolic heart failure (89%), IABP significantly augmented cardiac index and lowered systemic vascular resistance (P<.05). Despite this improvement, 28% of these patients died (24%) or require urgent escalation in mechanical circulatory support (MCS) (4%). Multivariable regression revealed that baseline left ventricular cardiac power index (LVCPI), a measure of LV power output derived from cardiac index and mean arterial pressure (P=.01), and history of ischemic cardiomyopathy (P=.003) were significantly associated with the composite adverse-event endpoint of death or urgent MCS escalation. An IABP Failure risk score using baseline LVCPI <0.28 W/m
conclusionDespite hemodynamic improvements with IABP support, patients with non-AMI cardiogenic shock still suffer poor outcomes. Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and low LVPCI fared significantly worse. These patients may warrant closer observation or earlier consideration of more advanced hemodynamic support.
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.