ArticleCirculation reports2026
Short-Term Outcomes of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump vs. Microaxial Flow Pump for Fulminant Myocarditis Supported by Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.
Article in Circulation reports, 2026. 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.
- Inhaled Nitric Oxide Therapy and Changes in Pulmonary Artery Pulsatility Index During Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Weaning in Cardiogenic Shock Requiring ECPELLA.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Efficacy of Intraoperative Inhaled Nitric Oxide in Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Low Ejection Fraction.Circulation reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The clinical differences between intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP) and a microaxial flow pump (Impella) for left ventricular (LV) unloading in patients with fulminant myocarditis (FM) supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) remain unclear. Methods and Results: In this single-center, retrospective cohort study, we analyzed 27 consecutive patients with lymphocytic FM who received VA-ECMO support. Patients were stratified by the LV unloading device that was used: IABP (n=15); or Impella (n=12). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality or implantation of an extracorporeal ventricular assist device (exVAD) within 30 days of VA-ECMO initiation. Temporal changes in laboratory and hemodynamic parameters during the first 7 days of support were also assessed. Baseline characteristics, including LV ejection fraction (IABP 16% vs. Impella 18%; P=0.814) and QRS duration (139 vs. 105 ms; P=0.805), were comparable between groups. Nine patients met the primary endpoint (mortality [n=7]; exVAD implantation [n=2]). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a significantly lower incidence of the primary endpoint in the Impella group (log-rank P=0.018). The Impella group also showed a significantly greater improvement in cardiac power output (group×time interaction, P=0.040). Hemolysis, elevated total bilirubin, and increased serum creatinine were more pronounced in the Impella group. Conclusions: In patients with FM requiring VA-ECMO, LV unloading with Impella was associated with improved short-term clinical outcomes compared with 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.