ReviewCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2020
Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock.
Review in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Timing of intervention in cardiogenic shock management: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Review
- Outcomes of Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Who Presented with Cardiogenic Shock versus Patients Who Developed Cardiogenic Shock during Hospitalization.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring in Cardiogenic Shock Is Associated With Lower In-Hospital Mortality.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
- Fifteen-Year Trends in Incidence of Cardiogenic Shock Hospitalization and In-Hospital Mortality in the United States.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
- Heart failure: role and point of view of cardiac intensivist.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo provide a contemporary concise overview of the currently available mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices and the emerging concepts in the management of cardiogenic shock (CS). RECENT
findingsNew classification of CS has emerged and is hoped to allow a unified approach to research and clinical management of CS. A number of MCS devices have also become available for clinical use in the last 2 decades. Those devices have different hemodynamic targets, provide various levels of support, and are associated with specific requirements and potential complications. Data on the utility of MCS in CS remains conflicting with randomized trials showing no benefit of MCS, and observational data suggesting an incremental value for MCS over medical therapy. However, the early use and escalation of MCS in a standardized approach do appear to provide a remarkable improvement in short-term outcomes of patients with CS. MCS devices afforded lifesaving treatment for many patients with CS. However, optimal utilization of such devices requires familiarity with their clinical data, and technical characteristics, and mandates their integration in an algorithmic team-based approach to CS.
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.