ArticleCureus2026
Impella Versus Intra-aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock: Arrhythmias, Bleeding Complications, and In-Hospital Outcomes in a Propensity-Matched Analysis of the National Inpatient Sample.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith no robust data indicating a mortality benefit of Impella over the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), we conducted a retrospective analysis to assess the frequency of morbidity outcomes, including arrhythmias, associated with the two devices. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe performed a retrospective observational study using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (2009-2014). Hospitalizations involving acute myocardial infarction or cardiogenic shock, valve surgery, cardiac bypass, or percutaneous coronary intervention, which received Impella or IABP on the day of admission, were identified. Propensity score matching was conducted to account for baseline demographic characteristics and admitting diagnoses. The difference-in-differences statistic was used to assess the difference in arrhythmia outcomes between the two groups. Analyses were performed using RStudio (Posit Software, PBC, Boston, MA, USA). Primary outcomes included arrhythmia rates and in-hospital mortality.
resultsThe unmatched data included 5,053 hospitalizations receiving Impella and 133,042 receiving IABP on the day of admission. A 1:1 propensity score matching yielded 10,106 matched hospitalizations. We observed significantly higher odds of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in the Impella group and of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) in the IABP group. Bleeding, hematoma, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use were higher with Impella, whereas iatrogenic cardiac complications and heart transplant were higher with IABP. Subgroup analysis showed higher in-hospital mortality among patients with VF, AF, stroke, and ECMO use in the Impella group.
conclusionsOur study showed a greater association between VT and Impella, whereas iatrogenic complications and SVT were more commonly associated with IABP use. Impella was associated with significantly higher rates of VT, VF, and in-hospital cardiac arrest and with higher in-hospital mortality, while AF was significantly more common with IABP. These findings suggest a potential benefit of increased post-procedural surveillance in patients receiving Impella, pending confirmation in prospective studies.
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.