ArticleJTCVS open2023
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and microaxial left ventricular assist device in cardiogenic shock: Choosing the right mechanical circulatory support to improve outcomes.
Article in JTCVS open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 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
- Prognostic scores of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a scoping review.World journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the outcomes of patients supported with Impella (CP/5.0) or venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for cardiogenic shock according to shock phenotype. The primary end point was 30-day survival. Methods: A retrospective study of patients supported with Impella (CP/5.0) or VA-ECMO between 2010 and 2020 was performed. Patients were grouped according to 1 of 2 shock phenotypes: isolated left ventricular (LV) dysfunction versus biventricular dysfunction or multiple organ failure (MOF). The local practice favors Impella for isolated LV dysfunction and VA-ECMO for biventricular dysfunction or MOF. Results: Among the 75 patients included, 17 (23%) had isolated LV dysfunction. Patients with biventricular dysfunction or MOF had a greater median lactate level compared with those with isolated LV dysfunction (7.9 [2.9-11.8] vs 3.8 [1.1-5.8] mmol/L, respectively). Among patients with isolated LV dysfunction, 30-day survival was 46% for the Impella group (n = 13) and 75% for VA-ECMO (n = 4). Among patients with biventricular dysfunction or MOF, 30-day survival was 9% for the Impella group (n = 11) and 28% for VA-ECMO (n = 47). Patients supported with Impella 5.0 had better 30-day survival compared with those supported with Impella CP, for both shock phenotypes (83% vs 14% and 14% vs 0%, respectively). Conclusions: In this small cohort, patients supported with Impella for isolated LV dysfunction and VA-ECMO for biventricular dysfunction or MOF had acceptable survival at 30 days. Patients with biventricular dysfunction or MOF who were supported by Impella had the lowest survival rates. Patients with isolated LV dysfunction who were supported with VA-ECMO had good 30-day survival.
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.