ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Impella versus Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Resource utilization associated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation vs. microaxial flow pump for infarct-related cardiogenic shock.European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care · 2025Pooled it
- IMPELLA COMPARED TO VENOARTERIAL EXTRACORPOREAL MEMBRANE OXYGENATION IN CARDIOGENIC SHOCK: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF PROPENSITY SCORE-MATCHED STUDIES.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2025Pooled it
- Risk factors for primary graft dysfunction after heart transplantation-a systematic review and meta-analysis.JHLT open · 2026Review
- Review
- Current and novel biomarkers in cardiogenic shock.European journal of heart failure · 2025Review
- Phenotyping Refractory Cardiogenic Shock Patients Receiving Venous-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Using Machine Learning Algorithms.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Italian Association of Hospital Cardiologists Position Paper 'Gender discrepancy: time to implement gender-based clinical management'.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024Article
- A patient with extensive ST elevation myocardial infarction who underwent emergent Impella CP® assisted off-pump coronary artery bypass without mechanical complication.Journal of cardiology cases · 2024Article
- Concomitant use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and percutaneous microaxial assist device support for cardiogenic shock.JTCVS open · 2024Article
- Severe Mitral Valve Regurgitation Secondary to Fulminant Myocarditis in the Setting of a Lupus Flare.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2024Article
- The impact of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock post-acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European heart journal open · 2024Article
- State of Shock: Contemporary Vasopressor and Inotrope Use in Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Review
- Impella Versus VA-ECMO for Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Comprehensive Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analyses.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDespite an increase in the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices for acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), there is currently no randomised data directly comparing the use of Impella and veno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO).
methodsElectronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched in November 2021. Studies directly comparing the use of Impella (CP, 2.5 or 5.0) with VA-ECMO for AMI-CS were included. Studies examining other modalities of MCS, or other causes of cardiogenic shock, were excluded. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.
resultsNo randomised trials comparing VA-ECMO to Impella in patients with AMI-CS were identified. Six cohort studies (five retrospective and one prospective) were included for systematic review. All studies, including 7093 patients, were included in meta-analysis. Five studies reported in-hospital mortality, which, when pooled, was 42.4% in the Impella group versus 50.1% in the VA-ECMO group. Impella support for AMI-CS was associated with an 11% relative risk reduction in in-hospital mortality compared to VA-ECMO (risk ratio 0.89; 95% CI 0.83-0.96, I
conclusionsThere is no high-level evidence comparing VA-ECMO and Impella in AMI-CS. In available observation studies, MCS with Impella was associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital and medium-term mortality as compared to VA-ECMO.
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.