Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25737288›Full record

ReviewHerz2015

[Mechanical support in cardiogenic shock].

T Graf, H Thiele

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Herz, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

T GrafUniversitäres Herzzentrum Lübeck, Medizinische Klinik II (Kardiologie, Angiologie, Intensivmedizin), Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Deutschland.
H Thiele

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Treatment of patients in cardiogenic shock (CS) presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is still a challenge and mortality rates remain high, approaching 50 %. Hemodynamic stabilization before and/or after early revascularization remains the primary goal in these patients. In addition to hemodynamic support by inotropes and vasopressors, support with mechanical devices such as intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP), percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) and complete extracorporeal life support (ECLS) with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may be considered. The use of IABP cannot be recommended anymore on a routine basis. Unfortunately, there are no large randomized data from studies evaluating treatment with mechanical support systems compared to standard treatment with respect to the clinical outcome of patients and no head-to-head comparison of different devices is available. Another important open question to be answered is which subgroups of patients may have a benefit from LVAD therapy. Guidelines discourage the routine use of mechanical support as a first-line treatment in CS patients and emphasize that the application should be restricted to those patients with refractory shock. This article gives an overview of the different devices for percutaneous mechanical support in CS and describes the available evidence and guideline recommendations.

Indexed as

Heart-Assist DevicesCombined Modality TherapyEquipment Failure AnalysisEvidence-Based MedicineExtracorporeal Membrane OxygenationHumansIntra-Aortic Balloon PumpingProsthesis DesignShock, CardiogenicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.