ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026
Prophylactic IABP in patients with severe ventricular dysfunction undergoing CABG: impact on early postoperative outcomes.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe mechanical hemodynamic support provided by IABP placement is recognized in cases of cardiogenic shock or severe clinical compromise. The benefits of its prophylactic use before CABG in patients with severe ventricular dysfunction but in the absence of critical conditions remain controversial.
methodWe conducted a retrospective analysis by NACSA of 16,222 patients with LVEF < 30% indicated for CABG in the absence of clinical emergencies between 1996 and 2018. 634 underwent prophylactic preoperative IABP and were matched 1:1 using PSM with patients not receiving IABP. Of these, 634 patients received preoperative prophylactic IABP. PSM (1:1) was performed, followed by doubly robust logistic regression analysis. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative CVA, postoperative dialysis, re-exploration for bleeding, and DSWI. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was conducted stratifying the population based on the surgical technique used: off-pump or on-pump.
resultsAfter matching, 557 pairs of patients were analyzed. No significant differences were observed between groups in 30-day mortality (7.0% vs. 4.1%; OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.98-2.71; p = 0.058) or in secondary outcomes, including CVA (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23-2.12; p = 0.62), dialysis (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.84-2.38; p = 0.16), re-exploration for bleeding (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.85-2.01; p = 0.43), and DSWI (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.41-4.38; p = 0.49). These findings were consistent in doubly robust analyses. Sensitivity analyses stratified by surgical technique showed no significant associations, although estimates in the off-pump subgroup were imprecise.
conclusionsProphylactic preoperative IABP use was not associated with a significant reduction in early mortality or major postoperative complications after adjustment for baseline risk.
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.