ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Effectiveness of an Impella Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Patients Who Received Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 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.
- Global research trends and hotspots in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock: a bibliometric review and knowledge mapping approach (1990-2024).Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Early temporary ventricular assist device intervention improves survival in fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock: experience from a single centre and national cohort.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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is unclear whether an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or percutaneous ventricular assist device (Impella) in combination with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is better.
methodsUsing the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database from September 2016 to March 2022, we identified inpatients who received an Impella or IABP in combination with ECMO (ECPella or ECMO+IABP group, respectively). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and the secondary outcomes included the length of hospital stay, length of ECMO, total hospitalization cost, complications, and durable mechanical circulatory support implantations. Propensity score matching was performed to compare the outcomes between the groups.
resultsOf 14 319 eligible patients, 590 (4.1%) received ECPella and 13 729 (96%) received ECMO+IABP. The mean age of patients was 65 years, 77% were men, and 57% had acute coronary syndrome. After propensity score matching, the patient characteristics were well balanced between the groups. The 14-day mortality rate was lower in the ECPella group than in the ECMO+IABP group (28.0% versus 36.8%; risk difference, -8.2% [95% CI, -13.8 to -2.7]), whereas there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the groups (58.3% versus 56.6%; risk difference, 2.4% [95% CI, -3.5 to 8.2]). The ECPella group had a higher total hospitalization cost, increased renal replacement therapy during hospitalization, and more durable mechanical circulatory support implantations than the ECMO+IABP group.
conclusionsThis nationwide inpatient database study showed no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the groups, but ECPella was associated with a higher total hospitalization cost, increased renal replacement therapy during hospitalization, and more durable mechanical circulatory support implantations than ECMO+IABP.
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.