ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2023
IABP versus Impella Support in Cardiogenic Shock: "In Silico" Study.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lower AKI Risk and Higher Survival With Microaxial Flow Pump Support During Elective PCI: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Observational
- Can algorithms come to the rescue of a failing heart? Machine learning, artificial intelligence, and decision-making in cardiogenic shock.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary Management and Hemodynamic Rescue of Cardiogenic Shock in RCA STEMI With Severe Mitral Regurgitation.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- Impella vs. IABP in Non-emergent High-Risk PCI: Outcomes and LVEF Recovery from a Large US EHR Study.Cardiology and therapy · 2026Article
- Case Report: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in acute coronary syndrome: a rare case of massive left ventricular thrombus.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- 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
- Technological evolution ofFrontiers in physiology · 2025Review
- The intelligent Impella: Future perspectives of artificial intelligence in the setting of Impella support.ESC heart failure · 2024Review
- Design and Analysis of a Polymeric Left Ventricular Simulator via Computational Modelling.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Concomitant use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and percutaneous microaxial assist device support for cardiogenic shock.JTCVS open · 2024Article
- Modelling and Simulation of the Combined Use of IABP and Impella as a Rescue Procedure in Cardiogenic Shock: An Alternative for Non-Transplant Centres?Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock (CS) is part of a clinical syndrome consisting of acute left ventricular failure causing severe hypotension leading to inadequate organ and tissue perfusion. The most commonly used devices to support patients affected by CS are Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP), Impella 2.5 pump and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation. The aim of this study is the comparison between Impella and IABP using CARDIOSIM
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.