ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2018
Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Refractory Cardiogenic Shock Before Left Ventricular Assist Device Surgery.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
42 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mortality in cardiogenic shock patients receiving mechanical circulatory support: a network meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of the Efficacy of ECMO With or Without IABP in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Reporting of sex as a variable in cardiovascular studies using cultured cells: A systematic review.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2020Pooled it
- Comparison of outcomes after ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction: a US retrospective cohort analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- Modified nutrition risk in critically ill (mNUTRIC) score on admission and mortality in acute heart failure patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit.Heart and vessels · 2026Article
- Position Statement by the Saudi Heart Failure Working Group of the Saudi Heart Association on the Management of Advanced Heart Failure in Saudi Arabia.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2026Article
- Kidney Function Trajectories With Mechanical Circulatory Support.Kidney international reports · 2025Article
- The Effect of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock Supported by Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- The Price We Pay for Progression in Shock Care: Economic Burden, Accessibility, and Adoption of Shock-Teams and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
- Role of acute mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiogenic shock.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2023Review
- Management and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock in Uninsured Compared With Privately Insured Individuals.Circulation. Heart failure · 2022Article
- Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to durable left ventricular assist device implantation in INTERMACS-1 patients.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2022Article
- Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients with Fulminant Myocarditis: A Review of Contemporary Literature.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
- A Clinical Update on Vasoactive Medication in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock.Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology · 2022Review
- Body Mass Index and In-Hospital Management and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- Evaluation of direct thrombin inhibitors during a critical heparin shortage.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2021Article
- Influence of primary payer status on non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 18-year retrospective cohort national temporal trends, management and outcomes.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Management and Outcomes of Cardiac Arrest Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
- Racial Disparities in the Utilization and Outcomes of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Cardiogenic shock teams and centres: a contemporary review of multidisciplinary care for cardiogenic shock.ESC heart failure · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background There are limited data on the role of temporary mechanical circulatory support ( MCS ) devices for cardiogenic shock before left ventricular assist device ( LVAD ) surgery. This study sought to evaluate the trends of use and outcomes of MCS in cardiogenic shock before LVAD surgery. Methods and Results This was a retrospective cohort study from 2005 to 2014 using the National Inpatient Sample (20% stratified sample of US hospitals). This study identified admissions undergoing LVAD surgery with preoperative cardiogenic shock. Admissions for other cardiac surgery and heart transplant were excluded. Temporary MCS was identified using administrative codes. The primary outcome was hospital mortality and secondary outcomes were hospital costs and lengths of stay in admissions with and without MCS use. In this 10-year period, 9753 admissions were identified with 40.6% requiring pre- LVAD MCS . There was a temporal increase in the frequency of cardiogenic shock associated with an increase in non-intra-aortic balloon pump MCS devices. The cohort receiving MCS had greater in-hospital myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmias, and use of coronary angiography. On multivariable analysis, older age, myocardial infarction, and need for MCS devices were independently predictive of higher in-hospital mortality. In 696 propensity-matched pairs, use of MCS was predictive of higher in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.4 [95% confidence interval 1.1-1.6]; P=0.02) and higher hospital costs, but similar lengths of stay. Conclusions In patients with cardiogenic shock bridged to LVAD therapy, there was a steady increase in preoperative MCS use. Use of MCS identified patients at higher risk for in-hospital mortality and greater resource utilization.
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.