ArticleCardiology and therapy2026
Impella vs. IABP in Non-emergent High-Risk PCI: Outcomes and LVEF Recovery from a Large US EHR Study.
Article in Cardiology and therapy, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHigh-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI) involves patients with complex coronary disease, adverse hemodynamics, and/or severe comorbidities who are often ineligible for surgery. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may reduce procedural risk and facilitate complete revascularization. However, comparative data on outcomes and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery are limited. We hypothesized that the benefits of MCS-supported PCI observed in prior studies would extend to contemporary, real-world, non-protocolized all-comer datasets, where outcomes and LVEF recovery in patients undergoing non-emergent Impella- or intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP)-supported HR-PCI can be evaluated.
methodsWe synthesized an MCS-specific cohort using de-identified electronic health record data (2017-2025). Adults undergoing non-emergent HR-PCI supported with cardiac unloading via a continuous, forward high-flow pump (Impella) or IABP were included. Admissions with emergent status, right heart failure, cardiogenic shock, or ST-elevation myocardial infarction, or those undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, were excluded. Propensity score matching (1:1) adjusting for baseline differences was performed. Outcomes included all-cause mortality (7, 30, and 90 days) and 30-day, medical code-derived (cd) adverse events (acute kidney injury [cd-AKI] and cd-bleeding requiring transfusion). LVEF change within 1 year was assessed in a predefined subgroup.
resultsBefore matching, patients supported with Impella had more comorbidities, lower baseline LVEF, and more complex procedural characteristics than IABP-supported patients. After matching, baseline characteristics were balanced. Impella was associated with lower all-cause mortality at 30 days (12.7% vs. 16.6%) and 90 days (15.2% vs. 19.6%), and reduced cd-AKI (15.7% vs. 20.3%). In patients matched for baseline LVEF values and collection timing, both groups demonstrated LVEF improvement (+ 7% for Impella; + 3% for IABP).
conclusionIn contemporary, non-protocolized, non-emergent HR-PCI, the use of Impella was associated with improved outcomes and greater LVEF recovery compared to 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.