PubHawk
N Engl J Med October 2012 PMID 22920912

Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.

Holger Thiele, Uwe Zeymer, Franz-Josef Neumann, Miroslaw Ferenc, Hans-Georg Olbrich, Jörg Hausleiter, Gert Richardt, Marcus Hennersdorf, Klaus Empen, Georg Fuernau, Steffen Desch, Ingo Eitel, Rainer Hambrecht, Jörg Fuhrmann, Michael Böhm

Full text PDF Download social card

Mentions

113
Peak: 5 in Nov 2022
across 7 sources since Jan 2019

Extended reach

227,266
potential audience

Total likes

99

Video views

3,243

Mentions per month

Jan 2019 – Aug 2024

Where it's discussed

  • X / Twitter52 posts
  • Facebook24 posts
  • News24 articles
  • Blogs8 articles
  • YouTube2 videos
  • Reddit2 posts
  • Bluesky1 posts

AI synopsis

What people are saying

The discussions consistently reference the SHOCK II trial and guidelines, highlighting that intraaortic balloon support does not significantly improve mortality or other outcomes, which influences opinions and clinical decision-making. The tone is analytical and evidence-based, emphasizing the importance of rigorous research in guiding therapy choices.

AgreementModerate agreement

Most discussions agree that the evidence shows intraaortic balloon support does not improve outcomes, citing the 2012 SHOCK II trial as key proof.

InterestHigh interest

The discussions demonstrate high engagement with detailed references to clinical trials and guidelines, showing strong interest in the research and its implications.

EngagementModerate engagement

Several posts analyze the results critically and contrast them with current guidelines, revealing thoughtful engagement and questioning the clinical use of the device.

ImpactHigh impact

The discussions emphasize that the findings challenge existing clinical practices, suggesting broad implications for treatment protocols and resource allocation.

Abstract in brief

  • This study was a large, randomized trial comparing the use of intraaortic balloon support (IABP) to no support in patients with heart attack and cardiogenic shock, finding no significant difference in 30-day survival rates.
  • Despite being recommended in guidelines, the evidence mainly comes from registry data, and this trial showed that IABP did not improve key outcomes like mortality, hemodynamic stabilization, or complications when compared to standard treatment.
  • Overall, the findings suggest that routine use of intraaortic balloon support may not provide additional survival benefit in these critically ill patients.
Read the full abstract

Top posts

Most liked on X and Bluesky
Erik Rafflenbeul
@KardiologieHH · X

@MarcVorpahl @DrJayMohan 2023??? I can tell you for 2012 (and since) that there is no indication according to evidence based medicine: https://t.co/OOAaU1XFwD

Mar 17, 2023 · 12 likes · 1 share · 8,747 followers View post →
Dr Stephen T Webb
@stephen_t_webb · X

A reminder of the results of the SHOCK II trial from 2012: Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation did not significantly ⬇️ 30-day ☠️ in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute MI for whom an early revasc strategy was planned ⁦@NEJM⁩

Apr 22, 2024 · 11 likes · 4 shares · 8,520 followers View post →
Less-Is-More Cardiologist
@DavidLBrownMD · X

@ArisKaratasakis @CMichaelGibson But IABP has already been demonstrated in SHOCK II to not improve outcomes. It would seem unethical and unscientific to use an ineffective device with definite complications. https://t.co/bhf9Wqg1AE

Aug 2, 2022 · 10 likes · 2 shares · 22,267 followers View post →
Drぷー
@Dr_ppooohh · X

@NaokiThukishima @awikebusnes_u @awikebusnes_uさんへ 代表的なRCTのIABP-SHOCK II試験です 早期血行再建を行ったAMI後心原性ショックに対するIABPは30日死亡率を改善せず，1年後6年後のフォローアップでも有益性を示さず https://t.co/XwOLLYvExs

Jun 6, 2022 · 6 likes · 24,844 followers View post →
Gurleen Kaur, MD
@Gurleen_Kaur96 · X

2/ IABP SHOCK II trial

Jun 21, 2023 · 6 likes · 2 shares · 4,651 followers View post →
Juan Senior
@jsenior64 · X

Sentido común versus evidencia científica. Balón de contrapulsación en Infarto Killip IV. Sentido común: el uso de BCIAo como soporte mecánico debe mejorar los desenlaces; evidencia científica: no hay diferencias con su uso. Estudio IABP-SHOCK II. https://t.co/dCoWWNsPEZ

May 24, 2024 · 4 likes · 2 shares · 11,083 followers View post →

All mentions

Carlos F. Matute-Martínez
@Felipe_Matute · X

Intraaortic Balloon Support for Myocardial Infarction with Cardiogenic Shock | New England Journal of Medicine https://t.co/rnhlgjuHpq

Aug 17, 2024 · 223 followers View post →
william palacio
@wilipal · X

RT @jsenior64: Sentido común versus evidencia científica. Balón de contrapulsación en Infarto Killip IV. Sentido común: el uso de BCIAo com…

May 26, 2024 · 2 shares · 101 followers View post →
hernprir
@hernprir2 · X

RT @jsenior64: Sentido común versus evidencia científica. Balón de contrapulsación en Infarto Killip IV. Sentido común: el uso de BCIAo com…

May 24, 2024 · 2 shares · 392 followers View post →
Juan Senior
@jsenior64 · X

Sentido común versus evidencia científica. Balón de contrapulsación en Infarto Killip IV. Sentido común: el uso de BCIAo como soporte mecánico debe mejorar los desenlaces; evidencia científica: no hay diferencias con su uso. Estudio IABP-SHOCK II. https://t.co/dCoWWNsPEZ

May 24, 2024 · 4 likes · 2 shares · 11,083 followers View post →
Justyna Swol MD • ECMOdaily
@ECMOdaily · X

RT @stephen_t_webb: A reminder of the results of the SHOCK II trial from 2012: Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation did not significantly…

Apr 23, 2024 · 4 shares · 3,395 followers View post →
Louis de Bernard (he/him)
@Louisdebernard · X

RT @stephen_t_webb: A reminder of the results of the SHOCK II trial from 2012: Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation did not significantly…

Apr 22, 2024 · 4 shares · 2,743 followers View post →
DocLukk
@DocLukk · X

RT @stephen_t_webb: A reminder of the results of the SHOCK II trial from 2012: Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation did not significantly…

Apr 22, 2024 · 4 shares · 440 followers View post →
Andy Conway Morris
@andymoz78 · X

RT @stephen_t_webb: A reminder of the results of the SHOCK II trial from 2012: Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation did not significantly…

Apr 22, 2024 · 4 shares · 14,336 followers View post →
Dr Stephen T Webb
@stephen_t_webb · X

A reminder of the results of the SHOCK II trial from 2012: Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation did not significantly ⬇️ 30-day ☠️ in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute MI for whom an early revasc strategy was planned ⁦@NEJM⁩

Apr 22, 2024 · 11 likes · 4 shares · 8,520 followers View post →
MedLifeCrisis
@Profafib · X

RT @Gurleen_Kaur96: 2/ IABP SHOCK II trial

Jun 21, 2023 · 2 shares · 3,199 followers View post →
Dr. Luiz Silva
@DrLuizSilva1 · X

RT @Gurleen_Kaur96: 2/ IABP SHOCK II trial

Jun 21, 2023 · 2 shares · 395 followers View post →
Gurleen Kaur, MD
@Gurleen_Kaur96 · X

2/ IABP SHOCK II trial

Jun 21, 2023 · 6 likes · 2 shares · 4,651 followers View post →
Leonardo Pozo Garcia
@LeonardoPozoGa1 · X

RT @KardiologieHH: @MarcVorpahl @DrJayMohan 2023??? I can tell you for 2012 (and since) that there is no indication according to evidence b…

Mar 17, 2023 · 1 share · 1,860 followers View post →
Andreas Sofroniou
@andrsofroniou · X

In current international guidelines, intraaortic balloon counterpulsation is considered to be a class I treatment for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. However, evidence is based mainly on registry data, a…https://t.co/5EWTxTq1CS https://t.co/slL5UKzHsJ

Mar 17, 2023 · 918 followers View post →
Erik Rafflenbeul
@KardiologieHH · X

@MarcVorpahl @DrJayMohan 2023??? I can tell you for 2012 (and since) that there is no indication according to evidence based medicine: https://t.co/OOAaU1XFwD

Mar 17, 2023 · 12 likes · 1 share · 8,747 followers View post →
茨城の「墨子」に俺はなる！ひたちなかGIM：柴﨑俊一
@sn1shibazaki · X

RT @YukiKotani5: IABP-SHOCK II compared IABP and no-IABP care in 600 patients with carcinogenic shock + AMI @NEJM The 30-day mortality was…

Feb 2, 2023 · 1 share · 7,452 followers View post →
小谷祐樹 Yuki Kotani｜ICU × 臨床研究 × Podcast
@YukiKotani5 · X

IABP-SHOCK II compared IABP and no-IABP care in 600 patients with carcinogenic shock + AMI @NEJM The 30-day mortality was 39.7% vs 41.3%.

Feb 2, 2023 · 4 likes · 1 share · 8,300 followers View post →
OneLineSummary Bot
@OLS_Bot · X

IABP SHOCK II - 2012 - IABP vs no IABP in cardiogenic shock after AMI - ∅mortality, catecholamines, LOS, bleeding - https://t.co/B9an06CE6Q

Nov 17, 2022 · 140 followers View post →
OneLineSummary Bot
@OLS_Bot · X

IABP SHOCK II - 2012 - IABP vs no IABP in cardiogenic shock after AMI - ∅mortality, catecholamines, LOS, bleeding - https://t.co/B9an06Ufvq

Nov 13, 2022 · 140 followers View post →
Jeff Tyler
@jefftylermd · X

-The first trial evaluating the IABP for AMICS was published in 1973 yet it took nearly 4 decades until an adequately powered trial designed to determine if IABP improves patient outcomes in AMICS was published (IABP SHOCK-II) @thiele_holger 6/ https://t.co/Ft2acdXYc7

Nov 6, 2022 · 3 likes · 467 followers View post →
Nayan Arora
@captainchloride.bsky.social · Bluesky

First IABPs. More perfusion of the coronary arteries than systemically. No benefit in 30 day mortality or GFR in this study https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1208410

Nov 5, 2022 · 1 share View post →
Nayan Arora,MD
@captainchloride · X

First IABPs. More perfusion of the coronary arteries than systemically. No benefit in 30 day mortality or GFR in this study https://t.co/1kkxtMSfQA

Nov 5, 2022 · 3,411 followers View post →
lennart muras
@muraslennart · X

@vncntwbr Shock II Trial (DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1208410) Bzgl. Power der Studie, vllt. gutes Beispiel …Erläuterung zur Problematik hier: https://t.co/p2vgcgMmeU

Oct 20, 2022 · 1 like · 7 followers View post →
OneLineSummary Bot
@OLS_Bot · X

IABP SHOCK II - 2012 - IABP vs no IABP in cardiogenic shock after AMI - ∅mortality, catecholamines, LOS, bleeding - https://t.co/B9an06CE6Q

Oct 19, 2022 · 140 followers View post →
OneLineSummary Bot
@OLS_Bot · X

IABP SHOCK II - 2012 - IABP vs no IABP in cardiogenic shock after AMI - ∅mortality, catecholamines, LOS, bleeding - https://t.co/B9an06UNkY

Oct 7, 2022 · 140 followers View post →
OneLineSummary Bot
@OLS_Bot · X

IABP SHOCK II - 2012 - IABP vs no IABP in cardiogenic shock after AMI - ∅mortality, catecholamines, LOS, bleeding - https://t.co/B9an06UNkY

Sep 16, 2022 · 140 followers View post →
OneLineSummary Bot
@OLS_Bot · X

IABP SHOCK II - 2012 - IABP vs no IABP in cardiogenic shock after AMI - ∅mortality, catecholamines, LOS, bleeding - https://t.co/B9an06UNkY

Aug 24, 2022 · 140 followers View post →
Linda
@wordfinga · X

RT @DavidLBrownMD: @ArisKaratasakis @CMichaelGibson But IABP has already been demonstrated in SHOCK II to not improve outcomes. It would se…

Aug 2, 2022 · 2 shares · 4,578 followers View post →
Ovidio García
@ovidiogarciav · X

RT @DavidLBrownMD: @ArisKaratasakis @CMichaelGibson But IABP has already been demonstrated in SHOCK II to not improve outcomes. It would se…

Aug 2, 2022 · 2 shares · 3,540 followers View post →
Less-Is-More Cardiologist
@DavidLBrownMD · X

@ArisKaratasakis @CMichaelGibson But IABP has already been demonstrated in SHOCK II to not improve outcomes. It would seem unethical and unscientific to use an ineffective device with definite complications. https://t.co/bhf9Wqg1AE

Aug 2, 2022 · 10 likes · 2 shares · 22,267 followers View post →
Juan Senior
@jsenior64 · X

https://t.co/klgFpJgc4C

Jul 24, 2022 · 11,083 followers View post →
OneLineSummary Bot
@OLS_Bot · X

IABP SHOCK II - 2012 - IABP vs no IABP in cardiogenic shock after AMI - ∅mortality, catecholamines, LOS, bleeding - https://t.co/B9an06Ufvq

Jun 27, 2022 · 140 followers View post →
Drぷー
@Dr_ppooohh · X

@NaokiThukishima @awikebusnes_u @awikebusnes_uさんへ 代表的なRCTのIABP-SHOCK II試験です 早期血行再建を行ったAMI後心原性ショックに対するIABPは30日死亡率を改善せず，1年後6年後のフォローアップでも有益性を示さず https://t.co/XwOLLYvExs

Jun 6, 2022 · 6 likes · 24,844 followers View post →
Prof Derek Connolly
@DrDerekConnolly · X

From the world expert in cardiogenic shock https://t.co/lWifjboOQM https://t.co/BCTVGsZjFf

Mar 10, 2022 · 2 likes · 3,957 followers View post →
Shahrukh Bakar
@shahrukh_bakar · X

@rjVACHAS https://t.co/eZDjFfR68P

Dec 26, 2021 · 3 likes · 1,786 followers View post →
OneLineSummary Bot
@OLS_Bot · X

IABP SHOCK II - 2012 - IABP vs no IABP in cardiogenic shock after AMI - ∅mortality, catecholamines, LOS, bleeding - https://t.co/B9an06Ufvq

Oct 24, 2021 · 1 like · 140 followers View post →
OneLineSummary Bot
@OLS_Bot · X

IABP SHOCK II - 2012 - IABP vs no IABP in cardiogenic shock after AMI - ∅mortality, catecholamines, LOS, bleeding - https://t.co/B9an06Ufvq

Sep 28, 2021 · 1 like · 140 followers View post →
noamaan wilson-baig
@LeDyslexicMedic · X

RT @OLS_Bot: IABP SHOCK II - 2012 - IABP vs no IABP in cardiogenic shock after AMI - ∅mortality, catecholamines, LOS, bleeding - https://t.…

Sep 6, 2021 · 1 share · 2,036 followers View post →
OneLineSummary Bot
@OLS_Bot · X

IABP SHOCK II - 2012 - IABP vs no IABP in cardiogenic shock after AMI - ∅mortality, catecholamines, LOS, bleeding - https://t.co/B9an06Ufvq

Sep 6, 2021 · 1 like · 1 share · 140 followers View post →
OneLineSummary Bot
@OLS_Bot · X

IABP SHOCK II - 2012 - IABP vs no IABP in cardiogenic shock after AMI - ∅mortality, catecholamines, LOS, bleeding - https://t.co/B9an06Ufvq

Sep 5, 2021 · 140 followers View post →
OneLineSummary Bot
@OLS_Bot · X

IABP SHOCK II - 2012 - IABP vs no IABP in cardiogenic shock after AMI - ∅mortality, catecholamines, LOS, bleeding - https://t.co/B9an06Ufvq

Jun 18, 2021 · 140 followers View post →
Erik Rafflenbeul
@KardiologieHH · X

❤️ Vergleich 3: THIELE Wissenschaftlicher impact/h-Index Studien u.a. IABP-SHOCK II (@NEJM ; https://t.co/zN1g8wBcSe), CULPRIT-SHOCK (@NEJM), NSTEMI Guidelines 2020 (@escardio; https://t.co/Hm04ENYwTM) Highly cited Researcher 20 (https://t.co/cTx1OJR9mm) H-Index: 83 https://t.co/21fhOPqexZ

Apr 1, 2021 · 1 like · 8,747 followers View post →
OneLineSummary Bot
@OLS_Bot · X

IABP SHOCK II - 2012 - IABP vs no IABP in cardiogenic shock after AMI - ∅mortality, catecholamines, LOS, bleeding - https://t.co/B9an06Ufvq

Oct 21, 2020 · 140 followers View post →
OneLineSummary Bot
@OLS_Bot · X

IABP SHOCK II - 2012 - IABP vs no IABP in cardiogenic shock after AMI - ∅mortality, catecholamines, LOS, bleeding - https://t.co/B9an06Ufvq

Oct 18, 2020 · 140 followers View post →
OneLineSummary Bot
@OLS_Bot · X

IABP SHOCK II - 2012 - IABP vs no IABP in cardiogenic shock after AMI - ∅mortality, catecholamines, LOS, bleeding - https://t.co/B9an06Ufvq

Oct 12, 2020 · 140 followers View post →
OneLineSummary Bot
@OLS_Bot · X

IABP SHOCK II - 2012 - IABP vs no IABP in cardiogenic shock after AMI - ∅mortality, catecholamines, LOS, bleeding - https://t.co/B9an06Ufvq

Sep 3, 2020 · 140 followers View post →
OneLineSummary Bot
@OLS_Bot · X

IABP SHOCK II - 2012 - IABP vs no IABP in cardiogenic shock after AMI - ∅mortality, catecholamines, LOS, bleeding - https://t.co/B9an06Ufvq

Jun 14, 2020 · 140 followers View post →
Juan Senior
@jsenior64 · X

Finalmente, la recomendación del balón de contrapulsación es IIIB, para uso de rutina y solo para pacientes con complicaciones mecánicas con base en el estudio SHOCK IABP II. https://t.co/dCoWWNKqwx

Mar 2, 2020 · 11,083 followers View post →
Chris Bishop
@Pipes_n_pumps · X

RT @HawkmoonHEMS: And IABP not better than medical therapy alone. Same finding in https://t.co/Uer9n38t3S. An RCT of medical therapy v VA E…

Feb 10, 2020 · 1 share · 4,070 followers View post →
Brian Burns
@HawkmoonHEMS · X

And IABP not better than medical therapy alone. Same finding in https://t.co/Uer9n38t3S. An RCT of medical therapy v VA ECMO in this patient pop. would be interesting

Feb 10, 2020 · 3 likes · 1 share · 7,858 followers View post →
Nunca dejar que otros paguen por tus errores
@MonaresTI · X

@renecardio4 @FcoAyusoMC @Drtwitt02 https://t.co/efeEhhrCAG https://t.co/z67Uz9quQq https://t.co/4orstq7vOh Sin demeritar su excelente trabajo y gran esfuerzo por el paciente, el balon no tiene evidencia de beneficio. Con lo que se gasta al año en casos de balon se puede iniciar un programa de ECMO

Jan 6, 2020 · 4 likes · 7,270 followers View post →
Kaz Negishi@Cardiologist/ Heart Mafia
@kaznegishi · X

@naikai_kurama IABP-SHOCK IIでは6年後も有効性なかったけどねー https://t.co/M27W33bcwe https://t.co/l9aScXLSj2

Oct 29, 2019 · 1 like · 1,509 followers View post →
MIЯVΛƬ #IC ༄ ｡°
@mirvatalasnag · X

@Steph_Achenbach https://t.co/Ru1K6FfBj5 IABP Shock II inclusion criteria are not what many shock programs today would use. Many advocate early support. Data from IABP Shock suggest early improvement in perfusion not sustained at day 4 #SAPSII https://t.co/cH2wfs7c3q

Jan 10, 2019 · 26,281 followers View post →