ArticleJACC. Advances2026
Comparative Outcomes of Transferred vs Nontransferred Cardiogenic Shock Patients Receiving Impella Support.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Case for Regionalization: Standardizing the Hub-and-Spoke Model in Shock Care.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
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
backgroundCardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with high in-hospital mortality despite advances in temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices, such as Impella. However, access to Impella is not uniform across health care settings, often necessitating interhospital transfers. The impact of transfer status on Impella use, and outcomes in CS remains unclear.
objectivesThe aim of the study was to compare in-hospital mortality, complications, tMCS utilization patterns, and resource utilization between transferred and nontransferred CS patients receiving Impella support.
methodsUsing National Inpatient Sample 2016 to 2021, all CS patients receiving Impella were identified. Patients were grouped by transfer status: those transferred from acute care hospitals vs those managed in-house. Primary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, while secondary outcomes included rates of complications (acute limb ischemia, acute renal failure, and renal replacement therapy), tMCS utilization patterns, and hospital resource utilization. Outcomes were compared using Pearson chi-square test and multivariate regression analysis.
resultsA total of 11,264 patients received Impella for CS, and 28.3% were transferred from other hospitals. Sixteen percent had acute myocardial infarction at presentation. Mortality rates were similar between groups (41.6% vs 41.0%; P = 0.589). Transfer status was associated with higher rates of complications, including acute renal failure (71.5% vs 60.3%; P < 0.001) and renal replacement therapy (16.0% vs 11.6%; P < 0.001), as well as higher utilization of intra-aortic balloon pump and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Transfer status was also associated with longer hospital stays and higher hospitalization costs. These associations persisted with propensity score-based analysis.
conclusionsIn this study, transfer status was associated with similar in-hospital mortality but higher complication rates, greater use of additional tMCS, and increased resource utilization.
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.