ArticleESC heart failure2020
Intra-aortic balloon pump: is the technique really outdated?
Article in ESC heart failure, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early left ventricular unloading during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Artificial organs · 2025Pooled it
- Haemodynamic effects of intra-aortic balloon pumps stratified by baseline pulmonary artery pulsatility index.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Mechanical Support Strategies for High-Risk Procedures in the Invasive Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: A State-of-the-Art Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Outcomes of ECLS-SHOCK Eligibility Criteria Applied to a Real-World Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Temporary mechanical circulatory support devices: practical considerations for all stakeholders.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2023Review
- Intra-aortic balloon pump: is the technique really outdated?ESC heart failure · 2020Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsIntra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) utilization was expected to be quickly abandoned following the IABP-shock trial and its class III, level B recommendation in the 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of IABP compared with other mechanical support devices in a nationwide approach. METHODS AND
resultsWe conducted a retrospective study based on the French national hospital discharge database. All patients undergoing assist device implantation by IABP, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or IMPELLA® from 2014 to 2018 (2 years before/2 years after the 2016 guidelines) were included. The primary endpoint was the incidence of IABP implantation over the years. Secondary endpoints were incidence of total assist device, ECMO, and IMPELLA® implantations. From 2014 to 2018, a total of 18 940 patients benefited from mechanical support by IABP (n = 6657, 35.2%), ECMO (n = 11 881, 62.7%), or IMPELLA® (n = 402, 2.1%) in France. The incidence of total mechanical support implantations (ECMO and IABP) was constant over the years. IABP implantations decreased progressively from 1725 implantations in 2014 to 996 in 2018 (-42%). By contrast, ECMO implantations increased progressively from 1919 implantations in 2014 to 2763 implantations in 2018 (+44%). IMPELLA® implantations remained stable over the years from 63 (1.7%) implantations in 2014 to 83 (2.1%) in 2018.
conclusionsIn this nationwide real-life study, despite a significant decline in IABP implantations over the years since the ESC guidelines, this device remained used in clinical practice with around 1000 implantations in 2018. The size of centres was not strictly correlated with this use, suggesting differential uses depending on the local background.
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.