ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2021
Outcomes of Impella compared with intra-aortic balloon pump in ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Anesthetic Management in Patients with Impella Devices: A Retrospective Review and Clinical Guide.Annals of cardiac anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Staged, blood-sparing management of postmyocardial infarction ventricular septal rupture in a Jehovah's Witness.JTCVS techniques · 2026Article
- ECMO and impella increase stroke risk in acute myocardial infarction.Scientific reports · 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
17 authors at 14 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite limited randomized trial data demonstrating clinical efficacy, the utilization of Impella in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients complicated with cardiogenic shock (CS) has increased over time. Methods: We identified 75,769 hospitalizations with STEMI complicated by CS between October 2015 and December 2018 using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes. From this cohort, hospitalizations were stratified according to IABP or Impella placement. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were divided into efficacy, safety, and device-related complications. Propensity-score matching was used to account for differences in the baseline characteristics between the groups. Logistic regression was performed to get the odds ratio and confidence intervals. Results: Among 75,769 admissions with STEMI and CS, hospitalizations with <18 years old, both IABP and Impella placement, and who underwent ECMO and/or LVAD implantation were excluded. After the exclusion, out of 72,791 admissions, 25,260 (34.70%) hospitalizations received IABP, and 7825 (10.75%) received Impella support. After propensity score-matched analysis, 7345 hospitalizations were included in each group. All-cause in-hospital mortality was higher in the hospitalizations requiring Impella support as compared to IABP (42.10% vs. 31.54%, adjusted OR 1.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60-1.84, P < 0.0001). Impella was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital complications and hospitalization cost compared with IABP. Conclusion: Impella compared with IABP in STEMI patients with CS was associated with higher in-hospital mortality and other adverse clinical and procedural outcomes.
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.