ArticleESC heart failure2022
Intra-aortic balloon pump impacts the regional haemodynamics of patients with cardiogenic shock treated with femoro-femoral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
Article in ESC heart failure, 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to optimize brain perfusion and prevent cerebral complications during extracorporeal life support.Intensive care medicine · 2026Review
- Understanding and Mitigating Bleeding Risks in Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.JACC. Asia · 2026Article
- Is it Time to Upgrade Neuromonitoring in ECPR Recipients to Evaluate Cerebral Perfusion Imbalances Adequately?Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- In a quest for better outcome prediction in cardiogenic shock.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Modelling and Simulation of the Interactions Between the Cardiovascular System and the Combined Use of VA ECMO and IABP: Comparison Between Peripheral and Central Configurations.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Intra-aortic balloon pump after VA-ECMO reduces mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock: an analysis of the Chinese extracorporeal life support registry.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Article
- Left ventricle unloading during veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: review with updated evidence.Acute and critical care · 2024Article
- Echocardiographic and Point-of-Care Ultrasonography (POCUS) Guidance in the Management of the ECMO Patient.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Intra-aortic balloon pump impacts the regional haemodynamics of patients with cardiogenic shock treated with femoro-femoral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.ESC heart failure · 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
16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo investigate the impact of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) on the regional haemodynamics of patients with severe cardiogenic shock undergoing femoro-femoral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). METHODS AND
resultsFrom July 2017 to April 2018, a total of 39 adult patients with cardiogenic shock receiving both IABP and ECMO for circulatory support were enrolled consecutively in a university-affiliated cardiac surgery intensive care unit. The blood flow rates (BFRs) of the bilateral femoral artery (IABP side: iFA, ECMO side: eFA) and carotid artery (left: LCA, right: RCA) and the velocity time integral (VTI) of aortic root were assessed by ultrasonography and compared when IABP was on and off. Seventeen of 39 (43.6%) patients survived to discharge, and 29 (74.4%) survived on ECMO. A total of 172 pairs of data (IABP on and off) were collected in this study, measured on the median of 2.0 (1.0, 4.5) days after patients received VA-ECMO. The BFR on both sides of FA (iFA: 176.4 ± 104.5 vs. 152.2 ± 139.8 mL/min, P < 0.01; eFA: 299.3 ± 279.9 vs. 242.4 ± 258.8 mL/min, P < 0.01) and the aortic VTI (10.1 ± 4.4 vs. 8.5 ± 4.4 cm, P < 0.01) decreased significantly when turning the IABP off, while the BFR on both sides of CA remained unchanged (LCA: 555.7 ± 326.9 vs. 578.6 ± 328.0 mL/min, P = 0.27; RCA: 550.0 ± 331.1 vs. 533.0 ± 303.5 mL/min, P = 0.30). The LCA BFR dramatically increased after turning the IABP off (296.8 ± 129.7 vs. 401.4 ± 278.1 mL/min, P = 0.02) in patients with cardiac stunning (defined as pulse pressure ≤ 5 mmHg). However, there was no significant difference in LCA BFR between IABP-On and IABD-Off (359.6 ± 105.4 mL/min vs. 389.6 ± 139.3 mL/min, P = 0.31) in patients with cardiac stunning receiving a higher ECMO blood flow (> 3.5 L/min).
conclusionsConcomitant IABP used in patients undergoing femoro-femoral VA-ECMO was associated with increased aortic VTI and BFR in bilateral FA. The change in CA BFR depended on cardiac function. A decreased LCA BFR was observed in patients with cardiac stunning when IABP was turned on, which might be compensated by a higher ECMO blood flow. Further study is needed to confirm the relationship between BFR and extremities and neurological complications.
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.