ArticleJHLT open2026
Comparative outcomes of intra-aortic balloon pump versus impella in non-myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock: A National Inpatient Sample Database analysis.
Article in JHLT open, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs) and percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVADs; Impella) are used to stabilize patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). While recent evidence supports their usefulness in myocardial infarction (MI)-related CS, data on non-MI CS, particularly regarding newer Impella models, remain limited. We compared outcomes associated with IABP versus various Impella devices in non-MI CS. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed National Inpatient Sample (NIS) data from 2016 to 2022 to identify patients with non-MI CS who received IABP, Impella 2.5/CP, or Impella 5.0/LD/5.5. Outcomes explored were in-hospital mortality, rates of orthotopic heart transplant (OHT) and durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, blood transfusion requirements, length of stay, and total hospital charges. Results: Among patients with non-MI CS, Impella 5.0/LD/5.5 use was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (8.2% vs 14.9%, Conclusions: In non-MI CS, the high-flow Impella 5.0/LD/5.5, but not the low-flow Impella 2.5/CP, was associated with better survival and higher rates of advanced therapies than IABP, albeit at the expense of greater transfusion requirements, longer hospitalization, and greater resource utilization.
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.