Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30839372›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of therapeutics

Therapeutic Advances in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock.

Ovidiu Chioncel, Sean P Collins, Andrew P Ambrosy, Peter S Pang, Razvan I Radu, Elena-Laura Antohi, Josep Masip, Javed Butler, Vlad Anton Iliescu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of therapeutics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Prognosis of cardiogenic shock with and without acute myocardial infarction: results from a prospective, monocentric registry.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2024
    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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Ovidiu ChioncelUniversity of Medicine "Carol Davila," Bucharest.
Sean P CollinsDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN.
Andrew P AmbrosyDivision of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Peter S PangDepartment of Emergency Medicine and Indianapolis EMS, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
Razvan I RaduUniversity of Medicine "Carol Davila," Bucharest.
Elena-Laura AntohiUniversity of Medicine "Carol Davila," Bucharest.
Josep MasipCardiology Department, Hospital Sanitas CIMA, Barcelona, Spain.
Javed ButlerDepartment of Medicine, University of Mississippi School of Medicine, Jackson, MI.
Vlad Anton IliescuUniversity of Medicine "Carol Davila," Bucharest.
Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy · ROInstitutul de Urgenţă pentru Boli Cardiovasculare "Prof.Dr. C.C. Iliescu" · ROClinical Research Institute · USHospital Sanitas CIMA · ESIndiana University School of MedicineVanderbilt University · US

Funding

Tracking and Evaluation CoreU54GM115428 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MED CTR · PI MASON, SARAH · 2016 to 2025
$38.2M
Postdoctoral Training in Cardiovascular Clinical ResearchT32HL069749 · NHLBI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MARK, DANIEL B · 2003 to 2023
$6.7M
NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL069749NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM115428
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening state of tissue hypoperfusion, associated with a very high risk of mortality, despite intensive monitoring and modern treatment modalities. The present review aimed at describing the therapeutic advances in the management of CS. AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY: Many uncertainties about CS management remain in clinical practice, and these relate to the intensity of invasive monitoring, the type and timing of vasoactive therapies, the risk-benefit ratio of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) therapy, and optimal ventilation mode. Furthermore, most of the data are obtained from CS in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), although for non-AMI-CS patients, there are very few evidences for etiological or MCS therapies. DATA SOURCES: The prospective multicentric acute heart failure registries that specifically presented characteristics of patients with CS, distinct to other phenotypes, were included in the present review. Relevant clinical trials investigating therapeutic strategies in post-AMI-CS patients were added as source information. Several trials investigating vasoactive medications and meta-analysis providing information about benefits and risks of MCS devices were reviewed in this study. THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES: Early revascularization remains the most important intervention for CS in settings of AMI, and in patients with multivessel disease, recent trial data recommend revascularization on a "culprit-lesion-only" strategy. Although diverse types of MCS devices improve hemodynamics and organ perfusion in patients with CS, results from almost all randomized trials incorporating clinical end points were inconclusive. However, development of new algorithms for utilization of MCS devices and progresses in technology showed benefit in selected patients. A major advance in the management of CS is development of concept of regional CS centers based on the level of facilities and expertise. The modern systems of care with CS centers used as hubs integrated with emergency medical systems and other referee hospitals have the potential to improve patient outcomes.

conclusionsAdditional research is needed to establish new triage algorithms and to clarify intensity and timing of pharmacological and mechanical therapies.

Indexed as

Patient Care ManagementHumansShock, CardiogenicTriage

Identifiers

PMID30839372
PMCPMC6404765
OpenAlexW2919301698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.