ArticleActa Cardiologica Sinica2026
Challenges of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Cardiogenic Shock: Real-World Outcomes.
Article in Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to assess the long-term outcomes of patients treated with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) alone and in combination with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), focusing on the real-world effectiveness and patient survival. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and survival outcomes of patients undergoing IABP support alone versus those receiving combined IABP and ECMO support in a tertiary care setting. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 544 patients, of whom 362 received IABP support and 182 received combined IABP and ECMO support. The study was set in a tertiary care environment. Using Cox proportional hazard regression models, we examined biochemical, echocardiographic data, comorbidities, and medication histories to identify factors associated with mortality. Results: From January 2001 to June 2018 (median follow-up: 30 months), 544 patients received IABP with or without ECMO. Among the IABP-only group, non-survivors were older and had worse renal function, lower cholesterol, and more frequent cardiopulmonary resuscitation, pulseless electrical activity (PEA), ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, and sepsis. Age and PEA independently predicted all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.020 and 1.653, respectively), while age, peak creatine kinase, shock, and PEA were associated with cardiovascular (CV) death. In the IABP + ECMO group, mortality was similarly associated with older age, renal dysfunction, coronary artery disease, and PEA. After adjustment, age remained an independent predictor of all-cause (HR: 1.012) and CV mortality (HR: 1.014). Compared to IABP alone, the combination group had more critical illness features and higher adjusted risks of all-cause (HR: 1.827) and CV death (HR: 1.953). Conclusions: This study underscores the need for precise patient selection for advanced mechanical circulatory support, focusing on age and comorbidities. Our findings advocate for targeted management strategies to enhance the therapeutic potential of mechanical support in cardiogenic shock and improve survival rates among critically ill cardiac patients.
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.