Trial reportEuropean heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care2021
Long-term 5-year outcome of the randomized IMPRESS in severe shock trial: percutaneous mechanical circulatory support vs. intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction.
Trial report in European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.
- The predictive value of CK-MB on the curative effect of urokinase combined with LMWH calcium in AMI.Biomarkers in medicine · 2024Trial
- Association Between Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Support and Whole Blood Viscosity Following Cardiopulmonary Bypass.Artificial organs · 2026Observational
- 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
- Association of Mechanical Circulatory Support With In-Hospital Outcomes in Non-Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock: A Nationwide Inpatient Study.Clinical cardiology · 2026Article
- Mechanical Support in Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: What Have We Learned from Trials?Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Initial intra-aortic balloon pump versus Impella support strategies and short-term outcomes in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a MIMIC-IV cohort study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Short-Term Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Coronary Syndrome with Cardiogenic Shock: Which Device to Choose?Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- A Deep Learning Model to Guide Personalized Mechanical Circulatory Support Use in Cardiogenic Shock Patients Undergoing PCI.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Circulatory Support for High-Risk Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Coronary Interventions: Where is the Evidence?The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2025Review
- Prognostic Impact of the Difference of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Circulation reports · 2025Article
- Circulatory Disturbances in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Mechanisms, Management, and Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Priorities for Early Revascularization or Introduction of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Circulation reports · 2025Article
- Molecular Mechanisms of Cardiac Adaptation After Device Deployment.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Predictive Effect of Atypical Right Bundle-Branch Block on In-Hospital Sudden Cardiac Death and Cardiac Rupture and Long-Term Prognosis in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Who Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- A STEMI Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock Due to Simultaneous Acute Thrombosis of Two Coronary Vessels in the 'Deadly Double Infarct Syndrome': A Case Report and Discussion of Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Current practices in the management of temporary mechanical circulatory support: A survey of CICU directors in North America.American heart journal · 2024Article
- Mechanical Circulatory Support with Impella: Principles, Evidence, and Daily Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Hemodynamic management of cardiogenic shock in the intensive care unit.The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation · 2024Review
- The Management of Cardiogenic Shock From Diagnosis to Devices: A Narrative Review.CHEST critical care · 2024Article
- Clinical Application of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Treatment of Fulminant Myocarditis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo assess differences in long-term outcome and functional status of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) treated by percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). METHODS AND
resultsLong-term follow-up of the multicentre, randomized IMPRESS in Severe Shock trial (NTR3450) was performed 5-year after initial randomization. Between 2012 and 2015, a total of 48 patients with severe CS from acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with ST-segment elevation undergoing immediate revascularization were randomized to pMCS by Impella CP (n = 24) or IABP (n = 24). For the 5-year assessment, all-cause mortality, functional status, and occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) were assessed. MACCE consisted of death, myocardial re-infarction, repeat percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, and stroke. Five-year mortality was 50% (n = 12/24) in pMCS patients and 63% (n = 15/24) in IABP patients (relative risk 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.47-1.59, P = 0.65). MACCE occurred in 12/24 (50%) of the pMCS patients vs. 19/24 (79%) of the IABP patients (P = 0.07). All survivors except for one were in New York Heart Association Class I/II [pMCS n = 10 (91%) and IABP n = 7 (100%), P = 1.00] and none of the patients had residual angina. There were no differences in left ventricular ejection fraction between the groups (pMCS 52 ± 11% vs. IABP 48 ± 10%, P = 0.53).
conclusionsIn this explorative randomized trial of patients with severe CS after AMI, there was no difference in long-term 5-year mortality between pMCS and IABP-treated patients, supporting previously published short-term data and in accordance with other long-term CS trials.
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.