ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2019
Utilization of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction and High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Cardiogenic Shock due to Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review.BioMed research international · 2020Pooled it
- The Role of Impella in Cardiogenic Shock in the Post-DanGer Shock Era.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Acute myocardial infarction with ventricular septal rupture: Clinical characteristics, prognosis factors, and treatment strategies.World journal of cardiology · 2025Review
- Feasibility and Effectiveness of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Plus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Assisted High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Complex Coronary Disease.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2024Article
- Review of Advancements in Managing Cardiogenic Shock: From Emergency Care Protocols to Long-Term Therapeutic Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- The Use of Cardioprotective Devices and Strategies in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Procedures and Cardiac Surgery.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Long-term clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock according to the application and initiation time of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in South Korea.Cardiology journal · 2023Article
- Contemporary Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A State-of-the-art Review.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2023Review
- Radiographic assessment of lung edema (RALE) score is associated with clinical outcomes in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock and refractory cardiac arrest after percutaneous implantation of extracorporeal life support.Internal and emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Long-term outcomes of high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions under extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support: An observational study.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- The Use of Mechanical Circulatory Assist Devices for ACS Patients with Cardiogenic Shock and High-Risk PCI.Current cardiology reports · 2022Review
- Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction. Current Status and Unresolved Targets for Subsequent Research.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Developing a Time-Adaptive Prediction Model for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Nationwide Cohort Study in Korea.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Observational
- 2020 Focused Update of the 2012 Guidelines of the Taiwan Society of Cardiology for the Management of ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2020Review
- [¿Es realmente protectora la PCI protegida? Reflexiones críticas a partir de CHIP-BCIS3 y la evidencia previa].Archivos peruanos de cardiologia y cirugia cardiovascularArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the tremendous progress in interventional cardiology over the last decade, a growing number of older patients, who have more comorbidities and more complex coronary artery disease, are being considered for technically challenging and high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The success of performing such complex PCI is increasingly dependent on the availability and improvement of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, which aim to provide hemodynamic support and left ventricular (LV) unloading to enable safe and successful coronary revascularization. MCS as an adjunct to high-risk PCI may, therefore, be an important component for improvement in clinical outcomes. MCS devices in this setting can be used for two main clinical conditions: patients who present with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and those undergoing technically complex and high-risk PCI without having overt cardiogenic shock. The current article reviews the advancement in the use of various devices in both AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock and complex high-risk PCI, highlights the available hemodynamic and clinical data associated with the use of MCS devices, and presents suggestive management strategies focusing on appropriate patient selection and optimal timing and support to potentially increase the clinical benefit from utilizing these devices during PCI in this high-risk group of patients.
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.