ArticleCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2016
Coronary Revascularization in Cardiogenic Shock.
Article in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Low-Dose Recombinant Human Brain Natriuretic Peptide on Anterior Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgeryTrial
- The Current State of Coronary Revascularization: Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Versus Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
- Impact of Initial Operative Urgency on Short-Term Outcomes in Patients Treated with ECMO Due to Postcardiotomy Cardiogenic Shock.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Features of Patients Receiving Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Relative to Cardiogenic Shock Onset: A Single-Centre Experience.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- Revascularization Practices and Outcomes in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Who Presented With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock in the US, 2009-2018.JAMA internal medicine · 2020Article
- An unusual case of renal calculi leading to myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock.World journal of emergency medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
opinion statementEarly revascularization in acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) reduces mortality with a life saved for every eight patients treated. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has become the mainstay of treatment for CS, particularly for ST-segment elevation MI, due to the ability to achieve rapid reperfusion; with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) operations reserved for patients with mechanical complications or anatomy that poses challenges for timely PCI. Mortality remains high even in patients with successful revascularization, and interventional cardiologists must consider additional treatment options. Recent data supports the performance of multi-vessel PCI to achieve complete revascularization in this setting. In addition, early implementation of a percutaneous hemodynamic support device is recommended in patients in whom shock is profound and unlikely to reverse with culprit lesion PCI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.