ArticleCirculation reports2025
Prognostic Impact of the Difference of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Circulation reports, 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal device for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated with cardiogenic shock (CS) remains unknown. Therefore, in this study we aimed to analyze which MCS (intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP) or IMPELLA) is associated with better outcomes in patients with AMI-related CS. Methods and Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis used a random-effects model to account for potential heterogeneity. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used for the dichotomous outcomes. The PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases were searched up to April 30, 2023. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Two randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. For the primary outcome of 30-day survival, IMPELLA probably improves the outcome by a small amount compared with IABP (RR0.94 [95% CI 0.5-1.53], 29 fewer per 1,000 [95% CI from 204 fewer to 258 more], low certainty of evidence). Conclusions: We could not show a survival benefit of IMPELLA compared with IABP in patients with AMI complicated by CS. Further investigation is required to resolve this issue.
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.