ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020
Long-Term Clinical Outcome of Cardiogenic Shock Patients Undergoing Impella CP Treatment vs. Standard of Care.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- [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
- Clopidogrel vs. prasugrel vs. ticagrelor in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a pooled IABP-SHOCK II and CULPRIT-SHOCK trial sub-analysis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2021Trial
- Axial Flow Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices: Physiology, Procedural Considerations, and Clinical Applications-A State-of-the-Art Review.Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team · 2026Review
- Experts' recommendations for the management of adult patients with cardiogenic shock.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes of Impella 5+ in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock: a retrospective single-center study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- The Role of Impella in Cardiogenic Shock in the Post-DanGer Shock Era.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- The Role of Impella in Cardiogenic Shock Complicated by an Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Patient-specific Predictors of Haemolysis with Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices.Cardiac failure review · 2025Article
- Mechanical Circulatory Support with Impella: Principles, Evidence, and Daily Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Impella Versus VA-ECMO for Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Comprehensive Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analyses.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
- Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device in Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Predictive value of the APACHE II score in cardiogenic shock patients treated with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2022Article
- Incidence and Outcome of Patients with Cardiogenic Shock and Detection of Herpes Simplex Virus in the Lower Respiratory Tract.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Cardiogenic Shock Management and Research: Past, Present, and Future Outlook.US cardiology · 2022Review
- Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction. Current Status and Unresolved Targets for Subsequent Research.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- New challenges in cardiac intensive care units.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2021Article
- Treatment of acute cardiac tamponade: A retrospective analysis of classical intermittent versus continuous pericardial drainage.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The number of patients treated with the mechanical circulatory support device Impella Cardiac Power (CP) for cardiogenic shock is steadily increasing. The aim of this study was to investigate long-term survival and complications related to this modality. Patients undergoing Impella CP treatment for cardiogenic shock were retrospectively enrolled and matched with cardiogenic shock patients not treated with mechanical circulatory support between 2010 and 2020. Data were collected from the cardiogenic shock registry of the university hospital of Munich (DRKS00015860). 70 patients with refractory cardiogenic shock without mechanical circulatory support were matched with 70 patients treated with Impella CP. At presentation, the mean age was 67 ± 15 years with 80% being male in the group without support and 67 ± 14 years (
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.