ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2017
[Cardiac support and replacement systems].
Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Extracorporeal lung support].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2017Review
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
In recent years, the widespread use of partial mechanical cardiac support and even temporary complete replacement of cardiac function has been established in many intensive care units in the treatment of refractory cardiogenic shock. There is a difference between partial left-ventricular assist devices (LVAD) and the possibility of complete heart (and lung) replacement by extra corporeal life support (ECLS). Despite the use of mechanical support devices, the mortality of cardiogenic shock remains high. The consideration of using percutaneous LVAD and ECLS in cardiogenic shock should be considered in refractory cardiogenic shock patients in addition to support by catecholamines and after early revascularization in acute coronary syndromes. However, there are no large randomized studies evaluating mechanical support systems with respect to outcome in cardiogenic shock patients. German and international guidelines do not recommend the routine use of mechanical support as a first-line treatment in cardiogenic shock patients and emphasize that their application should be restricted to patients with therapy refractory shock. In other cases of noninfarct-related cardiogenic shock (e. g., poisoning, myocarditis), ECLS use should be considered as bridging therapy. ECLS may also be considered in cardiopulmonary resuscitation which is termed E‑CPR. According to registry data, E‑CPR may reduce mortality in selected patients. A possible application of ECLS is severe accidental hypothermia with cardiac arrest despite limited data. In these rare cases, early ECLS should be considered for rewarming and stabilization.
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.