Observational studyJournal of the American Heart Association2024
Impella Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Treated With Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: An Observational Study.
Observational study in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Association of Mechanical Circulatory Support With In-Hospital Outcomes in Non-Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock: A Nationwide Inpatient Study.Clinical cardiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Safety and clinical outcomes of micro-axial intravascular flow pump compared to intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Article
- A Contemporary Guide of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Left ventricular unloading in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.European heart journal open · 2025Article
- Article
- National Outcomes of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Life Support in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease.Surgery open science · 2025Article
- Risk of acute ischemic stroke with early versus late initiation of mechanical circulatory support in hospitalizations with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a propensity-matched analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Variability in triggers for mechanical left ventricular unloading in VA-ECMO: A literature search.The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 2025Review
- Left ventricle unloading during veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: review with updated evidence.Acute and critical care · 2024Article
- Different strategies in left ventricle unloading during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A network meta-analysis.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2024Review
- Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVenoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used for patients with cardiogenic shock. Although Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is frequently used for left ventricular unloading (LVU) during VA-ECMO treatment, there are limited data on comparative outcomes. We compared outcomes of Impella and IABP for LVU during VA-ECMO. METHODS AND
resultsUsing the Nationwide Readmissions Database between 2016 and 2020, we analyzed outcomes in 3 groups of patients with cardiogenic shock requiring VA-ECMO based on LVU strategies: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) only, ECMO with IABP, and ECMO with Impella. Of 15 980 patients on VA-ECMO, IABP and Impella were used in 19.4% and 16.4%, respectively. The proportion of patients receiving Impella significantly increased from 2016 to 2020 (6.5% versus 25.8%;
conclusionsIn patients with cardiogenic shock on VA-ECMO, LVU with Impella, particularly with 2.5/CP, was not associated with improved survival at 40 days but was associated with increased adverse events compared with IABP. More data are needed to assess Impella platform-specific comparative outcomes of LVU.
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.