ArticleIndian heart journal2018
Gender disparities with the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention complicated by cardiogenic shock: From pVAD Working Group.
Article in Indian heart journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex differences in treatments and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and epidemiological meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Impella 5.5 use in women: A multicenter study.JHLT open · 2025Article
- Contemporary optimal therapeutic strategy with escalation/de-escalation of temporary mechanical circulatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock and advanced heart failure in Japan.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHemodynamic support with Impella (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA) devices is becoming a more prevalent treatment option for patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There exists only limited published data regarding outcome differences between male and female patients. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to analyze these gender differences between short-term survival and in-hospital outcomes in those undergoing PCI with CS.
methodsBetween January 2011 and July 2016, patients undergoing PCI with simultaneous use of Impella were identified. Only patients presenting with CS were included in the analysis. All-cause in-hospital mortality was the primary outcome. Using SAS 9.4 for propensity score matching, additional secondary outcomes were also compared.
resultsThe primary outcome was comparable between males and females (39.5% vs. 26.3%, p=0.33) in CS patients. Secondary outcomes were also comparable and included: myocardial infarction, stroke, CS, heart failure, dialysis requirement, bleeding within 72h, blood transfusion, dysrhythmia, composite of all complications, major adverse cardiac events. Survival at 30days was equal in both groups. A reduced mortality in males was noted for pre-PCI initiation of Impella. Additionally, both genders who received pre-PCI Impella support, experienced a significant reduction in inotrope use.
conclusionsDespite the small number of cohorts, this study did not reveal any significant differences among gender with the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist devices for PCI in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by CS. However, initiation of Impella prior to PCI may be associated with improved mortality and morbidity in both genders.
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.