Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32095880›Full record

ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2020

[Cardiogenic shock].

Robert Zilberszac, Gottfried Heinz

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 78% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Robert ZilberszacAbteilung für Kardiologie, Intensivstation 13H3, Univ. Klinik für Innere Medizin II, Medizinische Universität Wien, Wien, Österreich. robert.zilberszac@meduniwien.ac.at.
Gottfried HeinzAbteilung für Kardiologie, Intensivstation 13H3, Univ. Klinik für Innere Medizin II, Medizinische Universität Wien, Wien, Österreich.
Medical University of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is defined as end-organ hypoperfusion as the consequence of primary myocardial dysfunction. Among the diagnostic criteria are a systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, acute renal failure (oligoanuria), ischemic hepatitis, cyanosis and cold, clammy skin. Accepted hemodynamic cutoffs are a cardiac index < 2,2 (l/min)/m2 and a pulmonary capillary wedge pressure > 15 mmHg. It should be acknowledged, that a normal blood pressure does not rule out CS; there is a nonhypotensive variant of CS demonstrating all the signs mentioned above (including elevated lactate levels) while the blood pressure is compensated due to vasoconstriction.The single most frequent cause of CS is pump failure in the setting of an acute myocardial infarction and its mortality rate has been lowered to 40-50%, owing to the widespread availability of primary PCI. Regarding PCI, it has been demonstrated recently that a "culprit-lesion only strategy" should be followed in the setting of CS. Other important causes of CS to take into account are mechanical complications of myocardial infarction (papillary and ventricular septal rupture as well as rupture of the myocardial free wall leading to tamponade), valvular heart disease (mostly decompensated aortic stenosis) as well as myocarditis and end stage cardiomyopathy.The diagnosis of CS is made by patient history, physical examination, ECG, echocardiography and coronary angiography. Echocardiography should always be performed before coronary angiography because, in the case of mechanical complications, it significantly alters the management of the patients. Patients with clinical signs of CS but paradoxically preserved ejection fraction must be thoroughly evaluated for the presence of a papillary muscle rupture, particularly in the setting of a lateral wall infarction.Noradrenaline and dobutamine are the first-line agents for medical stabilization. When such conventional measures fail, extracorporeal support devices such as ECMO or Impella© may be used. Currently, trials are underway to assess wheter these devices confer a survival benefit in this high-risk population.

Indexed as

Myocardial InfarctionPercutaneous Coronary InterventionShock, CardiogenicCoronary AngiographyEchocardiographyHumansCardiogenic shockCritical careECMOEmergency medicineMyocardial infarction

Identifiers

PMID32095880
OpenAlexW4239323463

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.