ArticleThe American journal of cardiology2019
Comparison of the Hemodynamic Response to Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Resulting from Acute Myocardial Infarction Versus Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.
Article in The American journal of cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 64 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Association of Mechanical Circulatory Support With In-Hospital Outcomes in Non-Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock: A Nationwide Inpatient Study.Clinical cardiology · 2026Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of axillary intra-aortic balloon pump as a bridge to advanced heart failure therapy.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Experts' recommendations for the management of adult patients with cardiogenic shock.Annals of intensive care · 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
- Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiogenic Shock: A Narrative Review in Light of Recent Evidence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Differences Between Ischemic and Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy in Heart Failure Related Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of cardiac failure · 2025Article
- Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring in Acute Heart Failure and Cardiogenic Shock.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Bridge to Life: Current Landscape of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Heart-Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- The Management of Cardiogenic Shock From Diagnosis to Devices: A Narrative Review.CHEST critical care · 2024Article
- The Intra-aortic Balloon Pump: A Focused Review of Physiology, Transport Logistics, Mechanics, and Complications.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2024Review
- Differential effect of left ventricular unloading according to the aetiology of cardiogenic shock.ESC heart failure · 2024Observational
- Contemporary approach to cardiogenic shock care: a state-of-the-art review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Management of Post-cardiotomy Shock.US cardiology · 2024Review
- Early Utilization of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: The National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Article
- Perspectives and Considerations of IABP in the Era of ECMO for Cardiogenic Shock.Advances in therapy · 2023Review
- Review
- Review of Pathophysiology of Cardiogenic Shock and Escalation of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.Current cardiology reports · 2023Review
- Still a place for aortic counterpulsation in cardiac surgery and patients with cardiogenic shock?Critical care (London, England) · 2021Review
- Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump as a Bridge to Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) neither benefits nor harms patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with cardiogenic shock (CS) but may stabilize those with chronic heart failure who decompensate into CS. We sought to compare its hemodynamic effects in these 2 populations. We performed a retrospective analysis of the hemodynamic effects of IABP for AMI or acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) patients with hemodynamic evidence of CS. The primary outcome was cardiac output (CO) change following insertion. In total, 205 patients were treated for CS resulting from AMI (73; 35.6%) or ADHF (132; 64.4%). At baseline, both cohorts had significant hemodynamic compromise with mean arterial pressure 75.6 ± 12.3 mm Hg, CO 3.02 ± 0.84 L/min, and cardiac power index 0.26 ± 0.06 W/m
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.