ArticlePloS one2020
Complications from percutaneous-left ventricular assist devices versus intra-aortic balloon pump in acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Comparative Outcomes of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Versus Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device in High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Management of non-Cardiac Organ Failure in cardiogenic shock.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2025Article
- Outcomes of Impella 5.0 and 5.5 for cardiogenic shock: A single-center 137 patient experience.Artificial organs · 2024Article
- Cardiogenic shock severity and mortality in patients receiving venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenator support.European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care · 2022Article
- Management and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock in Uninsured Compared With Privately Insured Individuals.Circulation. Heart failure · 2022Article
- A Clinical Update on Vasoactive Medication in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock.Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology · 2022Review
- Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A RAND Appropriateness Panel Approach.Circulation. Heart failure · 2021Article
- Acute Kidney Injury in Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Narrative Review.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2021Review
- Trends and differences in management and outcomes of cardiac arrest in underweight and obese acute myocardial infarction hospitalizations.American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2021Article
- Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Mechanical Circulatory Device Utilization and Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsArticle
- Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock: Current Studies and Future Directions.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsReview
- Impact of concomitant respiratory infections in the management and outcomes acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock.Indian heart journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere are limited data on the complications with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) vs. intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS).
objectiveTo assess the trends, rates and predictors of complications.
methodsUsing a 17-year AMI-CS population from the National Inpatient Sample, AMI-CS admissions receiving pLVAD and IABP support were evaluated for vascular, lower limb amputation, hematologic, neurologic and acute kidney injury (AKI) complications. In-hospital mortality, hospitalization costs and length of stay in pLVAD and IABP cohorts with complications was studied.
resultsOf 168,645 admissions, 7,855 (4.7%) receiving pLVAD support. The pLVAD cohort had higher comorbidity, cardiac arrest (36.1% vs. 29.7%) and non-cardiac organ failure (74.7% vs. 56.9%) rates. Complications were higher in pLVAD compared to IABP cohort-overall 69.0% vs. 54.7%; vascular 3.8% vs. 2.1%; lower limb amputation 0.3% vs. 0.3%; hematologic 36.0% vs. 27.7%; neurologic 4.9% vs. 3.5% and AKI 55.4% vs. 39.1% (all p<0.001 except for amputation). Non-White race, higher comorbidity, organ failure, and extracorporeal membrane oxygen use were predictors of complications for both cohorts. The pLVAD cohort with complications had higher in-hospital mortality (45.5% vs. 33.1%; adjusted odds ratio 1.65 [95% confidence interval 1.55-1.75]), shorter duration of hospital stay, and higher hospitalization costs compared to the IABP cohort with complications (all p<0.001). These results were consistent in propensity-matched pairs.
conclusionsAMI-CS admissions receiving pLVAD had higher rates of complications compared to the IABP, with worse in-hospital outcomes in the cohort with complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.