SynthesisWiener klinische Wochenschrift2020
Impella in cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock associated with the use of microaxial flow pump: a systematic review and meta-analysis].Archivos de cardiologia de Mexico · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating gender-based disparities in the outcomes of impella use in acute myocardial infarction patients with cardiogenic shock; insights from real-world global data.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Article
- Pharmacological Considerations during Percutaneous Treatment of Heart Failure.Current pharmaceutical design · 2024Review
- Impella Versus VA-ECMO for Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Comprehensive Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analyses.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
- Review
- Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device in Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Pseudoaneurysm Formation After "Preclose"-Assisted Impella Insertion in a Patient With Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of medical cases · 2022Article
- Neurocritical Care of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveCardiogenic shock (CS) conveys a high mortality risk. A cardiac assist device may serve as bridge to patient recovery. We aimed to provide a pooled estimate on mortality and complications from studies evaluating the use of the left ventricular assist device Impella in CS following acute myocardial infarction. In addition, we evaluated whether mortality risk differed with device placement before or after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
methodsWe searched Medline, Embase and Web of Science from 2005 until July 2019 for observational studies or clinical trials on this specific patient group. Studies were required to report on 30-day all-cause mortality and device-related complications. We calculated pooled proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random effects models and the inverse variance method.
resultsOverall, 671 patients from 11 studies (2 randomized and 9 observational) were included. Pooled proportions showed a 30-day mortality of 54.6% (95% CI 47.3-61.8; P = 0.22; I
conclusionPooled estimates of Impella use in myocardial infarction with CS revealed a high 30-day mortality; however, as compared to post-PCI, Impella initiation prior to PCI was associated with a survival benefit.
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.