ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
IMPELLA
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impella Versus VA-ECMO in Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Exploratory Matched-Cohort Analyses.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Pooled it
- Concurrent Use of Kidney Replacement Therapy and Temporary Left Ventricular Assist Device in Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Blood purification · 2025Pooled it
- Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies.Intensive care medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Review
- Optimization of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Weaning: Hemodynamic Targets, Predictive Indicators, and Future Algorithm.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- 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
- Article
- Impella Versus VA-ECMO for Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Comprehensive Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analyses.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
- IABP versus Impella Support in Cardiogenic Shock: "In Silico" Study.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Article
- Acute coronary syndrome associated cardiogenic shock in the catheterization laboratory: peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenator management and recommendations.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
- Review
- Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device in Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Budget Impact Analysis of Impella CPAdvances in therapy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are effective tools in managing refractory cardiogenic shock (CS). Data comparing veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and IMPELLA
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.