ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2020
[Cardiogenic shock].
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Wearable ECG-PPG Deep Learning Model for Cardiac Index-Based Noninvasive Cardiac Output Estimation in Cardiac Surgery Patients.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.