ArticleHeart and vessels2025
Perioperative management of postinfarction ventricular septal rupture: a comparison of Impella with intra-aortic balloon pump.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgical relevance of a pedicled omental flap for the treatment of a recurrent giant mycotic left ventricular pseudoaneurysm: a case report and review of the literature.Journal of medical case reports · 2026Review
- DanGer shock criteria and outcomes in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock treated with Impella: the J-PVAD registry.European heart journal · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Postinfarction ventricular septal rupture (PIVSR) is a rare but serious complication of acute myocardial infarction. Determining how to conduct surgical repair safely is critical. We compared the outcomes of Impella and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) implantation during perioperative mechanical circulatory support management in patients with PIVSR (n = 22). The primary endpoint was the 12-month survival rate. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and the number of waiting days for surgery. Using the log-rank test, we compared Kaplan-Meier curves between the groups. The 12-month survival rate was 87.5% and 53.6% in the Impella and IABP groups, respectively, with no significant difference (p = 0.17). The median number of days from circulatory support implantation to surgery was longer in the Impella group than in the IABP group (2.5 days vs. 1.0 days, interquartile range: 1.8-5.2 vs. 0-1.0; p = 0.003). In the subgroup analysis considering only the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) shock stages B-D, the 12-month survival rate was higher (85.7% vs. 18.8%; p = 0.03) and the MACE rate was lower (14.3% vs. 53.3%; p = 0.010) in the Impella group than in the IABP group. In summary, when focusing on the SCAI shock stages B-D, the Impella group had significantly better outcomes than did the IABP group. In the perioperative management of PIVSR, the use of Impella may be more beneficial than the use of IABPs, particularly in patients with SCAI shock stages B-D.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39864025What 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.