ReviewInterventional cardiology (London, England)2018
'Combat' Approach to Cardiogenic Shock.
Review in Interventional cardiology (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating bibliometric analysis and external validation of the SAVE score in VA-ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock: insights from global trends and the MIMIC-IV database.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic Shock Systems of Care Best Practices. Part 2: The Shock Team and Inpatient Management.US cardiology · 2026Review
- Mitral Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair and Mandatory Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients With Structural Shock.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- Implementation of a Multidisciplinary Cardiogenic Shock Team in a Nonacademic Canadian Heart Centre: An Implementation Study.CJC open · 2025Article
- Stage E Cardiogenic Shock: Hold 'Em, Fold 'Em, or Double Down?Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- Article
- Early Recognition and Risk Stratification in Cardiogenic Shock: Well Begun Is Half Done.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Pulmonary Artery Catheter Monitoring in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Time for a Reappraisal?Cardiac failure review · 2022Review
- Pulmonary artery catheterization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: A review of contemporary literature.World journal of cardiology · 2021Review
- Quality of Heart Failure Care in the Intensive Care Unit.Journal of cardiac failure · 2021Review
- Cardiogenic shock teams and centres: a contemporary review of multidisciplinary care for cardiogenic shock.ESC heart failure · 2021Review
- Systems of Care in Cardiogenic Shock.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
- Cardiogenic Shock: Protocols, Teams, Centers, and Networks.US cardiology · 2021Review
- The Contemporary Cardiogenic Shock 'Playbook'.US cardiology · 2021Article
- Mechanical Circulatory Support: a Comprehensive Review With a Focus on Women.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2020Review
- Clinical and regulatory landscape for cardiogenic shock: A report from the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium ThinkTank on cardiogenic shock.American heart journal · 2020Review
- Temporary support strategies for cardiogenic shock: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, percutaneous ventricular assist devices and surgically placed extracorporeal ventricular assist devices.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2019Review
- Implementation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team and Clinical Outcomes (INOVA-SHOCK Registry): Observational and Retrospective Study.JMIR research protocols · 2018Article
- Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Mechanical Circulatory Device Utilization and Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsArticle
- Systems of Care in Cardiogenic Shock.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The incidence of cardiogenic shock is rising, patient complexity is increasing and patient survival has plateaued. Mirroring organisational innovations of elite military units, our multidisciplinary medical specialists at the INOVA Heart and Vascular Institute aim to combine the adaptability, agility and cohesion of small teams across our large healthcare system. We advocate for widespread adoption of our 'combat' methodology focused on: increased disease awareness, early multidisciplinary shock team activation, group decision-making, rapid initiation of mechanical circulatory support (as appropriate), haemodynamic-guided management, strict protocol adherence, complete data capture and regular after action reviews, with a goal of ending preventable death from cardiogenic shock.
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.