SynthesisShock (Augusta, Ga.)2025
IMPELLA COMPARED TO VENOARTERIAL EXTRACORPOREAL MEMBRANE OXYGENATION IN CARDIOGENIC SHOCK: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF PROPENSITY SCORE-MATCHED STUDIES.
Synthesis in Shock (Augusta, Ga.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impella Versus VA-ECMO in Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Exploratory Matched-Cohort Analyses.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Pooled it
- Factors influencing the interpretation of meta-analytic findings in cangrelor research.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Review
- Review of Current Management of Myocardial Infarction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractBackground: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) and Impella, a transluminal microaxial ventricular assist device, are well-established in the management of cardiogenic shock. No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) directly compare Impella versus VA ECMO to inform their safety and efficacy in cardiogenic shock. Purpose: This study aims to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched/adjusted studies to compare the clinical outcomes of Impella versus VA ECMO in cardiogenic shock patients. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken to identify comparative studies of Impella and VA ECMO in cardiogenic shock, which in the absence of RCTs, was limited to observational trials with propensity-matched or adjusted outcomes to account for important confounding factors between populations. In-hospital/30-day survival and bleeding events requiring transfusion were meta-analyzed using the random effects method. Results: Five propensity score-matched/adjusted studies comparing short-term survival following treatment with Impella versus VA ECMO were included. A statistically significant difference in in-hospital/30-day mortality was detected between patients treated with Impella (39.6%) versus VA ECMO (53.8%) (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.57 [0.44, 0.74]; P < 0.0001). Impella was associated with significantly fewer bleeding events requiring transfusion compared with VA ECMO (19.9% vs. 28.8%, respectively) (OR [95% confidence interval]: 0.61 [0.46, 0.80]; P = 0.0004). Conclusion: In the absence of RCTs, this meta-analysis of propensity matched/adjusted observational trials represents the highest level of evidence available to date. Impella was associated with improved short-term survival and decreased bleeding events compared to VA ECMO in patients with cardiogenic shock.
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.