SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2026
Concomitant Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Throughout Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Meta-Analysis of Cohorts.
Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Inconsistent reports exist regarding the efficacy of using a concomitant intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) among cardiac arrest (CA) patients undergoing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). Thus, this review was conducted to summarize the prognoses of adult ECPR patients with concurrent IABP. Methods: Data were gathered from PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. Cohorts of adult patients receiving ECPR with or without IABP, reporting short-term mortality, neurological outcomes, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) weaning rates, were recruited. Characteristics of the study population and the above-mentioned outcomes were extracted. A random-effects model was used to pool the data. Subgroup analyses were conducted in the propensity score-matching (PSM) population. Results: Nine cohorts with 5260 adult ECPR patients were included. In-hospital/30-day mortality, neurological performances of survivors, and ECMO weaning outcomes were not significantly different between populations with and without IABP. Nevertheless, younger patients with IABP showed an apparent improvement in in-hospital/30-day mortality. Similar findings were demonstrated in the analyses of PSM cohorts. High heterogeneity was present in the total cohort. Conclusions: In ECPR populations, concomitant IABP did not influence short-term survival, neurological, or ECMO weaning outcomes in the total cohort. However, IABP exhibited a survival benefit in the younger ECPR population. Further research in specific populations is warranted to validate and endorse our aggregated data. The PROSPERO Registration: CRD42024528761, Registration Link: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024528761.
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.