ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2026
Timing of IABP initiation and its impact on outcomes in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: insights from a bi-center retrospective study.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 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
backgroundThe optimal timing of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) initiation in cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains uncertain. Contemporary ESC guidance and the recent EACTS/STS/AATS MCS guideline highlight gaps regarding timing, patient selection, and ischemic burden. In this study, the association between IABP timing, myocardial area at risk (AAR), and survival in AMI-CS was evaluated.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 399 AMI-CS patients treated with primary PCI at two tertiary centers. Patients were categorized as no IABP (n = 124), non-rescue IABP (started during PCI; n = 216), or rescue IABP (inserted after PCI; n = 59). Clinical and angiographic parameters, including AAR quantified by a coronary anatomy-based algorithm, were assessed. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of in-hospital and 1-year mortality.
resultsNon-rescue IABP was independently associated with lower in-hospital mortality vs. no IABP (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.52). Rescue IABP showed a weaker association with lower in-hospital mortality (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19-0.89). At 1 year, mortality was higher in both no IABP (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.86-5.76) and rescue IABP groups (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.04-3.98) compared with non-rescue IABP. An augmented inverse-probability weighted (AIPW) analysis confirmed these findings, demonstrating a significant reduction in 1-year mortality with early IABP use compared with no IABP (ATE - 0.24, 95% CI - 0.375 to - 0.104), whereas no significant effect was observed for rescue IABP. A significant interaction between AAR and timing indicated that early IABP offered the greatest benefit in patients with moderate AAR (30-55%), whereas no benefit was observed with extensive AAR (> 80%).
conclusionsIn AMI-CS, early IABP initiation was associated with improved in-hospital and long-term survival, particularly in patients with a moderate AAR. These findings support the need for refining IABP use based on both ischemic burden and the timing of hemodynamic support. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: DRKS00038637, 03.12.2025.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42257865What 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.