[Therapy of cardiogenic shock : A success story of German cardiology].

R Erbel, M Buerke, S Mohr-Kahaly, H Oelert, R Uebis

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in Herz, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact, top 99% of its field

1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

R ErbelInstitut für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Deutschland. erbel@uk-essen.de.

M BuerkeKlinik für Kardiologie, Angiologie und Internistische Intensivmedizin, Marien Kliniken, Kampenstr. 5, 57072, Siegen, Deutschland.

S Mohr-KahalyPraxis für Innere Medizin, Kardiologie und Klinische Pharmakologie, Alwinenstr. 16, 65189, Wiesbaden, Deutschland.

H Oelert, Silvaner Str. 5a, 55129, Mainz, Deutschland.

R UebisPraxis für Innere Medizin und Kardiologie, Maximilianstr. 5a, 63739, Aschaffenburg, Deutschland.

Institut für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie · DEOrthopädische Praxis · DESt. Marien Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In contrast to the situation in the 1960s and 1970s, the mortality risk for patients with myocardial infarction has been clearly reduced, particularly for those with myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (MICS). Approximately 5‑10 % of patients with a myocardial infarction are affected by a MICS and the mortality risk is between 30 % and 50 %. The primary percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation should be carried out as quickly as possible in order to reduce the mortality to around 20 %. This article gives an overview of the currently available options for conservative and fibrinolytic treatment of MICS, of the interventional treatment of cardiogenic shock in the era of intravenous and intracoronary infarct treatment as well as without thrombolysis. In addition, the currently available mechanical support systems and the possibilities for surveillance and monitoring of patients are presented.

Indexed as

Myocardial InfarctionPercutaneous Coronary InterventionShock, CardiogenicThrombolytic TherapyHumansCardiogenic shockCoronary InterventionMedical therapyMyocardial infarctionStent Implantation

Identifiers

PMID30627739

DOI10.1007/s00059-018-4773-4

OpenAlexW2911149892

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.