Bonnefoy‐Cudraz 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Study grouping: not described Total duration of the study: not described Number of study sites and locations: not described Study setting: not described Date of the study: not described
Participants	People with CS secondary to AMI Baseline characteristics not described Total number of participants randomised to intervention: 15 Number of participants lost to follow‐up: 2 Number of participants analysed: 13
Interventions	Impella LP5.0 + IABP vs IABP alone Intervention characteristics MCS Type of MCS: LVAD Impella LP5.0 + IABP Duration from diagnosis to intervention: N/A Duration of treatment: N/A Concomitant medications: N/A IABP Duration from diagnosis to intervention: N/A Duration of treatment: N/A Concomitant medications: N/A
Outcomes	Haemodynamic effect CPI after 12 hours of support was increased but not significantly in people with the Impella LP5.0 + IABP compared with people with IABP (LP5.0 + IABP: CPI 0.08 (SD 0.08) watt/m²; IABP: CPI –0.02 (SD 0.25) watt/m²; P = 0.415). Survival: 30 day 30‐day mortality was 28.6% (2 deaths 1 week after inclusion) in Impella LP5.0 + IABP group compared to 0 in IABP group. Survival measured to: transplant: unsupported cardiac function Not reported Quality of life Not reported Major adverse cardiovascular events Not reported Dialysis‐dependent Not reported Length of hospital stay Not reported Length of ICU stay Not reported Major adverse events Not reported
Identification	Sponsorship source: not stated Country: France Setting: not reported Authors name: E Bonnefoy‐Cudraz Institution: Hospital Louis Pradel of Bron, Intensive Cardiac Care, Lyon, France Email: N/A Address: N/A Year: 2014
Notes	Published as a conference abstract.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method of selection not described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method of allocation concealment not described.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not described.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not described.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	2 participants randomised not included or accounted for in analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Outcomes were objective and described for all cases that were accounted for in analysis.
Other bias	Unclear risk	No information regarding how they dealt with minimising bias. The full paper has not been published.