ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2020
Outcomes of Hospitalizations for Cardiogenic Shock at Left Ventricular Assist Device Versus Non-Left Ventricular Assist Device Centers.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06475456 (SPOKE-HUB SHOCK PROTOCOL MANAGEMENT ACCORDING TO SCAI CLASS IN TURIN AND MILAN AREA), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 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.
Spoke-hub shock protocol management according to scai class in turin and milan area
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hospital-Level Variations in Outcomes and Readmissions Among Patients With STEMI and Cardiogenic Shock Receiving Mechanical Circulatory Support: Insights From a National Cohort.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients in Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Cardiac Surgery: Protected Cardiac Surgery Concept.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Acute kidney injury as a prognostic determinant in cardiogenic shock: a cohort study.Clinical and experimental nephrology · 2026Article
- Defining a Cardiogenic Shock Center and Its Relationship to Outcomes Among Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - A Scoping Review.Circulation reports · 2026Review
- Cardiogenic Shock Management in the Modern Era: A Narrative Review of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Cardiogenic Shock Management: Single-Center Experience With a Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device Escalation Strategy.JACC. Case reports · 2025Article
- Protocol-Driven Best Practices and Cardiogenic Shock Survival in Asian Patients.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- EPidemiology Of Cardiogenic sHock in Scotland (EPOCHS): A multicentre, prospective observational study of the prevalence, management and outcomes of cardiogenic shock in Scotland.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2024Article
- Timing and treatment strategies according to SCAI classification in cardiogenic shock.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- Upgrading extra corporeal life support to ECMELLA using Impella 5.0 in rescued INTERMACS 1 patients, lactate level matters!Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- Developing a Parsimonious Frailty Index for Older, Multimorbid Adults With Heart Failure Using Machine Learning.The American journal of cardiology · 2023Article
- Defining levels of care in cardiogenic shock.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Management of cardiogenic shock.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2021Review
- Cardiogenic Shock: Protocols, Teams, Centers, and Networks.US cardiology · 2021Review
- Systems of Care in Cardiogenic Shock.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
- Outcomes of Hospitalizations for Cardiogenic Shock at Left Ventricular Assist Device Versus Non-Left Ventricular Assist Device Centers.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2020Article
- Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Mechanical Circulatory Device Utilization and Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex syndrome associated with high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, many US hospitals have formed multidisciplinary shock teams capable of rapid diagnosis and triage. Because of preexisting collaborative systems of care, hospitals with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) programs may also represent "centers of excellence" for CS care. However, the outcomes of patients with CS at LVAD centers have not been previously evaluated. Methods and Results Patients with CS were identified in the 2012 to 2014 National Inpatient Sample. Clinical characteristics, revascularization rates, and use of mechanical circulatory support were analyzed in LVAD versus non-LVAD centers. The association between hospital type and in-hospital mortality was examined using multivariable logistic regression models. Of 272 075 hospitalizations, 26.0% were in LVAD centers. CS attributable to causes other than acute myocardial infarction represented most cases. In-hospital mortality was lower in LVAD centers (38.9% versus 43.3%;
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.