Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30828750›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2019

Update in the Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients with Cardiogenic Shock.

Jayant Bagai, Emmanouil S Brilakis

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07090382 (Prospective Validation of the STOPSHOCK Score - Artificial Intelligence Based Predictive Scoring System to Identify the Risk of Developing Cardiogenic Shock), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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.

NCT07090382 enrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Prospective Validation of the STOPSHOCK Score - Artificial Intelligence Based Predictive Scoring System to Identify the Risk of Developing Cardiogenic Shock (CS) in Patients Suffering From Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS)

TypeobservationalSponsorPremedix AcademyRan2025 to 2026Enrolled1,046ConditionsCardiogenic Shock, Cardiogenic Shock Acute, Cardiogenic Shock Post Myocardial Infarction, Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jayant BagaiVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Emmanouil S BrilakisMinneapolis Heart Institute, Abbott Northwestern Hospital and Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, 920 E 28th Street #300, Minneapolis, MN, 55407, USA. esbrilakis@gmail.com.
Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation · USVanderbilt University Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewWe provide a concise update on the contemporary management of cardiogenic shock in the setting of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Early shock recognition, optimal selection and initiation of mechanical circulatory support (MCS), early coronary revascularization, and a team-based, protocol-driven approach are the current pillars of management. RECENT

findingsCardiogenic shock complicates approximately 5-10% of ACS cases and continues to have high mortality. Early use of mechanical circulatory may prevent the downward spiral of shock and has significantly increased over time, supported mainly by registry data. In the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, culprit-only revascularization was associated with a lower 30-day incidence of all-cause death or severe renal failure, compared with immediate multivessel PCI. Routine revascularization of non-infarct related artery lesion(s) during primary PCI for cardiogenic shock is, therefore, not recommended. The routine use of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was not associated with improved outcomes in the IABP-SHOCK II trial. A team-based and protocol-driven approach may further improve outcomes. Recent advances in coronary revascularization and use of MCS, implementation of shock teams and standardized protocols may improve outcomes of cardiogenic shock in ACS patients.

Indexed as

Acute Coronary SyndromeMyocardial InfarctionPercutaneous Coronary InterventionShock, CardiogenicHumansIntra-Aortic Balloon PumpingTreatment OutcomeAcute coronary syndromeAcute myocardial infarctionCardiogenic shockMechanical circulatory supportUpdate

Identifiers

PMID30828750
OpenAlexW2919701825

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.