ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2017
Hemodynamic Support Devices for Shock and High-Risk PCI: When and Which One.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients in Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Cardiac Surgery: Protected Cardiac Surgery Concept.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Cardiac intensive care management of high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention using the venoarterial ECMO support.Heart failure reviews · 2020Review
- A Review of Bleeding Risk with Impella-supported High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Heart international · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThis article addresses evolving devices and uses of hemodynamic support in the management of high-risk PCI and AMI with cardiogenic shock. RECENT
findingsRecent publications question the benefit of Intra-aortic Balloon Pump support for AMI Shock. Furthermore, in high-risk PCI, the Impella support system provides better late outcomes than does the intra-aortic balloon pump. We have entered a new era in which larger, higher flow devices that increase cardiac output while unloading the left ventricle provide better outcome. The current PCI population is higher risk, and often without surgical options. Hemodynamic support, most often utilizing Impella support, improves outcomes via providing the hemodynamic stability to allow complete revascularization and optimal lesion treatment. Regarding shock, preliminary data suggests that a concept of early left ventricular unloading before PCI maybe the critical factor for improving the outcome for acute myocardial infarction complicating myocardial infarction.
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.