Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34085421›Full record

ReviewKorean circulation journal2021

Real-World Data on the Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Flow Pump (Impella) in High-Risk Patients.

Sunil V Rao

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Korean circulation journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 96% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sunil V RaoThe Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA. sunil.rao@duke.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2914-0894
Clinical Research Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices maintain or improve hemodynamic profiles in patients at risk for hemodynamic deterioration during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or those in cardiogenic shock. Clinical trials of MCS have been difficult to complete due to challenges with equipoise; however, there are several "real-world" comparative effectiveness analyses of outcomes of patients undergoing high-risk PCI or cardiogenic shock with different MCS. This review summarizes the real-world data on Impella and intra-aortic balloon pump, 2 of the most commonly used MCS, and provides insight into the limitations of such data and challenges to completing clinical trials.

Indexed as

Cardiogenic shockMechanical circulatory support

Identifiers

PMID34085421
PMCPMC8176068
OpenAlexW3160244390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.