ArticleCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2024
Intra-aortic balloon pump is associated with the lowest whereas Impella with the highest inpatient mortality and complications regardless of severity or hospital types.
Article in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2024. 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.
- Evolving Evidence-Driven Strategies in Cardiogenic Shock Management.JACC. Advances · 2026Review
- Comparative Outcomes of Direct Impella Use vs. Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP)-to- Impella Escalation Strategy in Cardiogenic Shock: Insights from the National Inpatient Sample.Research square · 2026Article
- Impella in killip class IV acute myocardial infarction complicated by pulseless ventricular arrhythmia.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Effect of mechanical circulatory support on outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Aortic Stenosis and Cardiogenic Shock.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Standard and Non-standard Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Ischemic Heart Disease and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Clinical Review.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Review
- Defining a Cardiogenic Shock Center and Its Relationship to Outcomes Among Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - A Scoping Review.Circulation reports · 2026Review
- Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Acute Cardiovascular Care.Circulation reports · 2025Review
- Antithrombotic Management in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Updated Clinical Review.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Review
- Use of a Pulmonary Artery Catheter in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Circulation reports · 2025Article
- Combined Risk Stratification With Patient Characteristics and Biomarkers in Patients Treated With the Impella for Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of the American Heart Association · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Impella and intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) are commonly utilized in patients with cardiogenic shock. However, the effect on mortality remains controversial. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of Impella and IABP on mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock the large Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was utilized to study any association between the use of IABP or Impella on outcome. ICD-10 codes for Impella, IABP, and cardiogenic shock for available years 2016-2020 were utilized. A total of 844,020 patients had a diagnosis of cardiogenic shock. A total of 101,870 patients were treated with IABP and 39645 with an Impella. Total inpatient mortality without any device was 34.2% vs only 25.1% with IABP use (OR = 0.65, CI 0.62-0.67) but was highest at 40.7% with Impella utilization (OR = 1.32, CI 1.26-1.39). After adjusting for 47 variables, Impella utilization remained associated with the highest mortality (OR: 1.33, CI 1.25-1.41, p < 0.001), whereas IABP remained associated with the lowest mortality (OR: 0.69, CI 0.66-0.72, p < 0.001). Separating rural vs teaching hospitals revealed similar findings. In patients with cardiogenic shock, the use of Impella was associated with the highest whereas IABP was associated with the lowest in-hospital mortality regardless of comorbid condition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38555535What 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.