Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management01:25

Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management

241
Aortic regurgitation (AR) is when the aortic valve does not close or seal properly, leading to backward blood circulation from the aorta into the left ventricle during diastole. Common causes of AR include rheumatic heart disease, congenital valve defects, and aortic root dilation. Managing AR requires a multifaceted approach to alleviate symptoms, preserve left ventricular function, and address the underlying cause of the regurgitation. Patients with symptomatic AR or significant left...
241

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Predicting fast recovery in infarct-related cardiogenic shock - Insights from the ECLS-SHOCK trial.

European journal of heart failure·2026
Same author

Cardiac Arrest and Outcome in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Journal of the American College of Cardiology·2026
Same author

Mechanical circulatory support center volume and outcomes in infarct-related cardiogenic shock: the ECLS-SHOCK trial.

European heart journal·2026
Same author

Long-Term Lessons From the COACT Trial: Coronary Angiography After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Revisited.

Journal of the American College of Cardiology·2026
Same author

Prognostic performance of cardiogenic shock 4 proteins prediction model in infarct-related cardiogenic shock.

ESC heart failure·2026
Same author

Natural History of Patients With Histologically Proven Acute Eosinophilic Myocarditis.

Circulation·2026
Same journal

Beyond therapeutic maximalism: Prioritization and personalization in preventive therapies.

Progress in cardiovascular diseases·2026
Same journal

Multimodality imaging of vulnerable plaque: Are we there yet? A multifaceted perspective.

Progress in cardiovascular diseases·2026
Same journal

Beyond LDL-C: Triangulating residual risk via lipoprotein(a), remnant cholesterol, and vascular inflammation.

Progress in cardiovascular diseases·2026
Same journal

COVID-19 and coronary atherosclerosis: Unmasking and accelerating?

Progress in cardiovascular diseases·2026
Same journal

Mavacamten and left ventricular dysfunction in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with left bundle branch block.

Progress in cardiovascular diseases·2026
Same journal

Lessons from ATTR-CM clinical trials: Progress, persistent disparities, and emerging treatment dilemmas.

Progress in cardiovascular diseases·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Dec 15, 2025

The Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump
06:13

The Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump

Published on: February 5, 2021

23.8K

Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation - Does it work?

Anne Freund1, Steffen Desch1, Holger Thiele2

  • 1Heart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig and Leipzig Heart Institute, Leipzig, Germany; German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Berlin, Germany.

Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases
|July 9, 2020
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) offers limited benefits for major cardiac conditions. Recent trials question its routine use, suggesting a need for reassessment in cardiovascular support.

Keywords:
Cardiogenic shockCoronary artery bypass graftingDecompensated heart failureIntra-aortic balloon pumpIntra-aortic counterpulsationMechanical circulatory supportMyocardial infarctionPercutaneous coronary intervention

More Related Videos

Use of a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device/Left Atrium to Femoral Artery Bypass System for Cardiogenic Shock
07:39

Use of a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device/Left Atrium to Femoral Artery Bypass System for Cardiogenic Shock

Published on: August 16, 2021

3.9K
Complete and Partial Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta for Hemorrhagic Shock
06:30

Complete and Partial Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta for Hemorrhagic Shock

Published on: May 19, 2022

7.2K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Dec 15, 2025

The Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump
06:13

The Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump

Published on: February 5, 2021

23.8K
Use of a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device/Left Atrium to Femoral Artery Bypass System for Cardiogenic Shock
07:39

Use of a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device/Left Atrium to Femoral Artery Bypass System for Cardiogenic Shock

Published on: August 16, 2021

3.9K
Complete and Partial Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta for Hemorrhagic Shock
06:30

Complete and Partial Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta for Hemorrhagic Shock

Published on: May 19, 2022

7.2K

Area of Science:

  • Cardiology
  • Medical Devices
  • Clinical Trials

Background:

  • The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has been a staple in cardiovascular care for 50 years.
  • Its efficacy and routine application are increasingly under scrutiny.
  • The device aims to improve coronary blood flow and decrease left ventricular afterload.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the current evidence regarding the benefits and drawbacks of IABP counterpulsation.
  • To understand the physiological responses that may negate IABP's intended effects.
  • To analyze the heterogeneity in guideline recommendations and regional IABP usage.

Main Methods:

  • Review of in-vivo studies investigating IABP's physiological impact.
  • Analysis of large randomized controlled trials for key cardiovascular indications.
  • Examination of international guidelines and regional variations in IABP utilization.

Main Results:

  • In-vivo studies indicate physiological responses can counteract IABP's intended benefits.
  • Major randomized trials failed to demonstrate significant benefits in cardiogenic shock, high-risk myocardial infarction, or elective high-risk PCI.
  • Evidence interpretation is inconsistent, leading to varied guideline recommendations and widespread regional differences in IABP use.

Conclusions:

  • The established benefits of IABP are questionable based on recent high-quality evidence.
  • Heterogeneous interpretation of data complicates clinical decision-making and device application.
  • Focus on newer mechanical circulatory support devices may hinder further research into specific IABP applications.