SynthesisCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2026
Impella Versus VA-ECMO in Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Exploratory Matched-Cohort Analyses.
Synthesis in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Observational studies comparing Impella and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in cardiogenic shock have reported inconsistent findings. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, with exploratory matched-cohort analyses where directly reportable propensity score-matched event-level data were available. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception through March 2026 for observational studies comparing Impella versus VA-ECMO in adult patients with cardiogenic shock. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, ICU outcomes, access site bleeding requiring transfusion, peripheral vascular complications, renal outcomes, and stroke. Random-effects models using restricted maximum likelihood were applied. Fifteen observational studies including 22,618 patients were analyzed. In the primary crude analysis, Impella was not associated with a statistically significant difference in in-hospital mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66-1.07; p = 0.15) with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 92.9%). However, leave-one-out analysis identified an influential registry study; its exclusion markedly reduced heterogeneity and favored Impella (p < 0.01). In exploratory propensity score-matched analysis, Impella was also associated with lower in-hospital mortality (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.85, p < 0.01). Thirty-day and 6-month all-cause mortality were neutral, whereas 12-month mortality modestly favored Impella (p = 0.048). Sensitivity analyses similarly resolved heterogeneity and favored Impella for selected secondary outcomes, including 6-month mortality, acute kidney injury, and ischemic stroke. ICU mortality was neutral, while ICU length of stay was shorter with Impella (p = 0.01). Impella was also associated with lower access site bleeding requiring transfusion (p < 0.01), peripheral vascular complications (p < 0.01), and hemorrhagic stroke (p < 0.01). In this updated meta-analysis of observational studies, the primary crude analysis of in-hospital mortality was neutral overall but highly heterogeneous, whereas sensitivity and exploratory matched-cohort analyses showed a more consistent association favoring Impella. Impella was also associated with lower bleeding and vascular complications and shorter ICU length of stay, although several outcomes remained sensitive to study-level influence. These findings should be interpreted cautiously given the observational design, predominance of serious risk of bias, and strong potential for confounding by indication.
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.