ArticleCardiology journal2022
Can we have a rationalized selection of intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the catheterization laboratory?
Article in Cardiology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing revascularization in the high-risk heart: Impella™-facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention in multivessel coronary artery disease with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and mitral regurgitation.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Timing of intervention in cardiogenic shock management: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Review
- High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction deemed not suitable for surgical revascularisation. A clinical consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) in collaboration with the ESC Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Animal Models for Mechanical Circulatory Support: A Research Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Has the role of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction been fully determined? A case report.European heart journal. Case reports · 2024Article
- Modelling and Simulation of the Combined Use of IABP and Impella as a Rescue Procedure in Cardiogenic Shock: An Alternative for Non-Transplant Centres?Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Management of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices in cath-lab and cardiac intensive care unit.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2023Review
- Post-Myocardial Infarction Ventricular Septal Defect: No Reprieve From Doom?JACC. Case reports · 2022Article
- Prophylactic Impella CP versus VA-ECMO in Patients Undergoing Complex High-Risk Indicated PCI.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac assistance represents an emerging issue in cardiovascular medicine. The evolution of invasive cardiology techniques is making the catheterization laboratory one of the main hospital sites where implantation of percutaneous ventricular assistance devices (PVADs) is discussed and performed. Among available PVADs, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are the most popular and offer completely different levels and ways to assist critical patients. The main settings calling for PVAD consideration in the catheterization laboratory are clinically indicated high-risk patients (CHIP) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and patients with cardiogenic shock or refractory cardiac arrest. In CHIP, PVAD serves the purpose of preventing hemodynamic collapse during PCI. This may also allow more extensive revascularizations and higher quality revascularization plans (imaging use, debulking, stent result optimization). IABP or Impella are more commonly selected whereas ECMO is seldom considered as a third option for highly selected patients. The "elective" nature of CHIP-PCI should allow careful procedure planning (peripheral artery disease assessment, access site selection and management) in order to minimize vascular/bleeding complications. Cardiogenic shock is still associated with high mortality rates, and PVAD theoretically offers further recovery chances. The lack of benefit observed with systematic IABP use is currently prompting consideration of the roles of Impella and ECMO. Prolonged assistance is often needed. Thus, team decisions and shared protocols for PVAD selection have to be promoted, taking into consideration available resources and operators' skills. In this paper, we critically review the available data in the field and highlight the possible decisionmaking hubs that catheterization-laboratory teams may consider in order to rationalize PVAD selection.
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.