ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2021
Cardiogenic shock: incidence, survival and mechanical circulatory support usage 2007-2017-insights from a national registry.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
38 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Outcome and complications in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock treated with extracorporeal life support - a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Pooled it
- Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies.Intensive care medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of the Efficacy of ECMO With or Without IABP in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients in Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Cardiac Surgery: Protected Cardiac Surgery Concept.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Pharmacology of vasopressors and inotropes during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Review
- In-Hospital Mortality of Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Prospective Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Diurnal Variation in Mechanical Circulatory Support Initiation and Associated Outcomes.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of combined veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and Impella support (ECPELLA) in infarct-related cardiogenic shock.European heart journal open · 2026Article
- Safety and clinical outcomes of micro-axial intravascular flow pump compared to intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic Shock Systems of Care Best Practices. Part 1: Prehospital and Emergency Department Evaluation and Management.US cardiology · 2026Review
- Clinical use and predictors of outcome in venoarterial extracorporeal membrane (VA ECMO): insights from VERGE (VA ECMO Registry of Germany).Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025Article
- Impact of Baseline Cardiogenic Shock Severity on Outcomes in Patients Treated With Impella Device.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Observational
- Impella 5.5 use in women: A multicenter study.JHLT open · 2025Article
- Sex-specific outcomes in acute myocardial infarction-associated cardiogenic shock treated with and without V-A ECMO: a retrospective German nationwide analysis from 2014 to 2018.Heart and vessels · 2025Article
- Current and novel biomarkers in cardiogenic shock.European journal of heart failure · 2025Review
- Prognostic accuracy of oxygen debt for mortality in patients undergoing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Predicting survival after Impella implantation in patients with cardiogenic shock: The J-PVAD risk score.European journal of heart failure · 2025Article
- The Effect of Vasopressin on 90-Day Mortality in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 2025Article
- Management of cardiogenic shock: state-of-the-art.Intensive care medicine · 2024Review
- Percutaneous Microaxial Ventricular Assist Device Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for Nonacute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA central element in the management of cardiogenic shock (CS) comprises mechanical circulatory support (MCS) systems to maintain cardiac output (CO). This study aims to quantify incidence, outcome and influence of MCS in CS over the last decade.
methodsAll patients hospitalized with CS in a tertiary university hospital in Germany between 2007 and 2017 were identified utilizing the international coding system ICD-10 with code R57.0. Application of MCS was identified via German procedure classification codes (OPS).
results383,983 cases of cardiogenic shock were reported from 2007 to 2017. Patients had a mean age of 71 years and 38.5% were female. The incidence of CS rose by 65.6% from 26,828 cases in 2007 (33.1 per 100,000 person-years, hospital survival 39.2%) to 44,425 cases in 2017 (53.7 per 100,000 person-years, survival 41.2%). In 2007, 16.0% of patients with CS received MCS (4.6 per 100,000 person-years, survival 46.6%), dropping to 13.9% in 2017 (6.6 per 100,000 person-years, survival 38.6%). Type of MCS changed over the years, with decreasing use of the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), an increase in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD) usage. Significant differences regarding in-hospital survival were observed between the devices (survival: overall: 40.2%; medical treatment = 39.5%; IABP = 49.5%; pVAD = 36.2%; VA-ECMO = 30.5%; p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe incidence of CS is increasing, but hospital survival remains low. MCS was used in a minority of patients, and the percentage of MCS usage in CS has decreased. The use rates of the competing devices change over time.
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.