ArticleScientific reports2024
A multivariate and retrospective analysis of the impact of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in Open-Heart surgery.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a clinical-ready nomogram for predicting postoperative pulmonary infection after coronary artery bypass grafting.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background The use of intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) effectively reduces left ventricular afterload and significantly increases coronary perfusion pressure by raising aortic diastolic pressure. This study examined the short and medium-term outcomes of 22,540 adult cardiac surgical patients requiring an IABP. Methods From 2009 to 2018, 1114 patients (4.94%) undergoing open-heart surgery at a single tertiary cardiac hospital received IABP support and were included in this retrospective study. They were categorized into pre-operative (Group A, n = 577), intra-operative (Group B, n = 475), and post-operative (Group C, n = 62) IABP insertion groups. Results Cardiogenic shock occurred in 11.2% of cases, mainly in Group A. Hemodynamic instability (38.8%) drove IABP use in Groups A and C, while difficulty weaning from CPB was the primary reason in Group C. The overall operative mortality rate was 10.9%, highest at 25.8% postoperatively. Multivariate analysis identified significant predictors of mortality: age (OR: 1.067, 95% CI: 1.041-1.094, p < 0.001), higher BMI (OR: 1.071, 95% CI: 1.017-1.128, p = 0.009), pulmonary hypertension (OR: 2.085, 95% CI: 1.302-3.341, p = 0.002), renal disease (OR: 2.780, 95% CI: 1.556-4.967, p < 0.001), and cardiogenic shock (OR: 3.684, 95% CI: 2.066-6.569, p < 0.001). Complications were more common in Group C, especially with renal disease. Average preoperative and postoperative stays were 4.0 ± 4.8 days and 15.2 ± 20.4 days, respectively, with no significant differences between groups. Conclusion IABP might offer safety for open-heart surgery, with longer hospital stays potentially associated with high-risk patients. Pre-operative IABP prophylaxis could be crucial in high-risk open-heart cases to reduce mortality.Clinical registration number: NHG DSRB Ref No# 2016/01070 and 2019/00397.
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.