Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 549

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of intra-aortic balloon pump therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: should we change the guidelines?

Sjauw, K. D., Engstrom, A. E., Vis, M. M., van der Schaaf, R. J., Baan, J., Koch, K. T., de Winter, R. J., Piek, J. J., Tijssen, J. G.P., Henriques, J. P.S.·2008·European Heart Journal

Abstract

Aims Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with cardiogenic shock is strongly recommended (class IB) in the current guidelines. We performed meta-analyses to evaluate the evidence for IABP in STEMI with and without cardiogenic shock. Methods and results Medical literature databases were scrutinized to identify randomized trials comparing IABP with no IABP in STEMI. In absence of randomized trials, cohort studies of IABP in STEMI with cardiogenic shock were identified. Two separate meta-analyses were performed respectively. The first meta-analysis included seven randomized trials (n = 1009) of STEMI. IABP showed neither a 30-day survival benefit nor improved left ventricular ejection fraction, while being associated with significantly higher stroke and bleeding rates. The second meta-analysis included nine cohorts of STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock (n = 10529). In patients treated with thrombolysis, IABP was associated with an 18% [95% confidence interval (CI), 16-20%; P < 0.0001] decrease in 30 day mortality, albeit with significantly higher revascularization rates compared to patients without support. Contrariwise, in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention, IABP was associated with a 6% (95% CI, 3-10%; P < 0.0008) increase in 30 day mortality. Conclusion The pooled randomized data do not support IABP in patients with high-risk STEMI. The meta-analysis of cohort studies in the setting of STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock supported IABP therapy adjunctive to thrombolysis. In contrast, the observational data did not support IABP therapy adjunctive to primary PCI. All available observational data concerning IABP therapy in the setting of cardiogenic shock is importantly hampered by bias and confounding. There is insufficient evidence endorsing the current guideline recommendation for the use of IABP therapy in the setting of STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock. Our meta-analyses challenge the current guideline recommendations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/eurheartj/ehn602

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 549

Metadata

Authors
Sjauw, K. D., Engstrom, A. E., Vis, M. M., van der Schaaf, R. J., Baan, J., Koch, K. T., de Winter, R. J., Piek, J. J., Tijssen, J. G. P., & Henriques, J. P. S.
Venue
European Heart Journal
Published
2008-09-27
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
459-468
ISSN
  • 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-9645
OpenAlex
W2132734525
Cited by
549
References
2
FWCI
2.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A systematic review and meta-analysis of intra-aortic balloon pump therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: should we change the guidelines? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurheartj/ehn602
The paper
Sjauw, K. D., Engstrom, A. E., Vis, M. M., van der Schaaf, R. J., Baan, J., Koch, K. T., de Winter, R. J., Piek, J. J., Tijssen, J. G. P., & Henriques, J. P. S. (2008). A systematic review and meta-analysis of intra-aortic balloon pump therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: should we change the guidelines? European Heart Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehn602

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.