ArticleCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2025
Prophylactic IABP Use in Protected PCI Reduces Infarction Size and Leads to More Complete Revascularization in Comparison to Rescue IAPB Use.
Article in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is little data questioning the timing of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) implantation in non-cardiogenic shock patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous procedures.
aimsWe compared prophylactic IABP (P-IABP) implantation to an emergent, unplanned rescue use (R-IABP) in high-risk PCI.
methodsAmong 300 IAPB patients who were treated at Ulm University Heart Center, Germany, between 2012 and 2020, we retrospectively selected and analyzed data from 59 patients. The cohort was subdivided into 44 P-IABP and 15 R-IAPB patients who underwent protected PCI with an IABP. Patients with cardiogenic shock at baseline, Impella-pump or extra corporal membrane oxygenator (ECMO) were excluded. Both elective and emergency patients with acute coronary syndrome were included.
resultsBoth groups showed no significant difference in the baseline characteristics. The achieved SYNTAX score reduction after PCI (delta SYNTAX) was higher in the P-IABP group (22.15 ± 10.31 points in the P-IAPB and 15.73 ± 10.13 points in the R-IABP group, p = 0.04). In addition, we observed lower highly sensitive Troponin T (hsTnT) peak values in the P-IAPB group after the intervention (2223.33 ± 3129.77 ng/L vs. 5823.85 ± 3885.35 ng/L, p = 0.001). P-IABP was associated with peak hsTnT values (p = 0.01). The 30-day mortality rates were not significantly different (p = 0.88).
conclusionPatients in the prophylactic-IAPB group experienced a more complete revascularization measured with the delta SYNTAX score compared to those in the rescue-IAPB group. Moreover, peri-interventional infarct size measured by hsTnT release was significantly lower. Both findings indicate that P-IABP implantation in high-risk PCI should be preferred to rescue IAPB use.
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.