ArticleJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2025
Safety and Efficacy of Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Elective High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Procedures.
Article in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 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.
- Pitfalls in Comparing Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices Using Administrative Datasets: Epidemiology of the Diseased Population.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- Mechanical Circulatory Support for High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Is It a Choice or Chance That Determines Outcomes?Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study compares outcomes between percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD)-supported and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP)-supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HRPCI) in a large-scale, contemporary hospital administrative dataset. Methods: Patients undergoing HRPCI supported by PVAD or IABP between January 1, 2018, and April 30, 2024, were identified in the Premier Healthcare Database. Patients were excluded if they had cardiogenic shock and/or STEMI on admission, received mechanical circulatory support and PCI on different days, required emergent procedures, had multiple mechanical circulatory support devices used, or received coronary artery bypass grafting surgery within the same admission. Variable rate propensity score matching was conducted with 87 preprocedural variables including patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, prior procedures, prior complications, and provider/hospital factors. The primary end point was the 90-day mortality, and secondary end points included major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), new cardiogenic shock, 30-day acute kidney injury, in-hospital blood transfusions, length of stay, and discharge disposition. Results: A total of 2416 patients who underwent PVAD-assisted HRPCI and 847 patients who underwent IABP-assisted HRPCI (mean age, 72 ± 10.4 years; 66% women; 19% non-White) were matched with good balance among all matched variables. Compared with those who received IABP support, those who received PVAD support had lower 90-day mortality (7.9% vs 11.8%; Conclusions: This retrospective observational study suggests that PVAD-supported HRPCI in nonshock patients may be associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with IABP-supported HRPCI; however, future randomized trials are required to confirm this finding.
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.