↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness of intra-aortic balloon pump for myocardial infarction in patients with or without cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The effectiveness of intra-aortic balloon pump for myocardial infarction in patients with or without cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis and systematic review
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12872-016-0323-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiao-yun Zheng, Yi Wang, Yi Chen, Xi Wang, Lei Chen, Jun Li, Zhi-gang Zheng

Abstract

Conflicting reports on the efficacy of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) incited us to evaluate the utility of IABP in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Randomized clinical trials comparing patients, who received IABP vs. control (no IABP) during PCI, were hand-searched from MEDLINE, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases using the terms "intra-aortic balloon pump, percutaneous coronary intervention, myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome". Mortality rate (30-day and 6-month mortality) was the primary outcome, while the secondary outcomes included 30-day bleeding rate, reinfarction rate, revascularization rate and stroke rate. Pooled results of the seven trials identified indicated that the 30-day and 6-month mortality rate were not significantly different between the IABP and control groups. However, in patients with MI, but without cardiogenic shock (CS), IABP was associated with lower odds of 30-day mortality (OR = 0.35, p = 0.015) and 6-month mortality (OR = 0.41, p = 0.020). The pooled results of 30-day bleeding rate was not significantly higher in patients with IABP than the control group, but for the patients with high risk PCI without CS, it was higher in patients with IABP than the control group (OR = 1.58, p = 0.009). The re-infarction, revascularization, and the stroke rate at 30 days of follow-up were not significantly different between the two groups. The present results do not favor the clinical utility of IABP in patients suffering high-risk PCI without CS and AMI complicated with CS. However, in patients with AMI, but without CS, IABP may reduce the 30-day and 6-month mortality rate.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 15%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Researcher 5 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Engineering 2 4%
Neuroscience 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 July 2017.
All research outputs
#10,124,080
of 11,409,342 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#625
of 723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,402
of 260,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#23
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,409,342 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 723 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 260,223 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.