ReviewESC heart failure2021
Cardiogenic shock teams and centres: a contemporary review of multidisciplinary care for cardiogenic shock.
Review in ESC heart failure, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 111 citations in OpenAlex.
- SCAI/EAPCI/ACVC Expert Consensus Statement on Cardiogenic Shock in Women.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Guideline
- 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
- Malnutrition and Cachexia in Inpatients With Acute Cardiac Conditions: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2026Review
- Can algorithms come to the rescue of a failing heart? Machine learning, artificial intelligence, and decision-making in cardiogenic shock.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Article
- Defining a Cardiogenic Shock Center and Its Relationship to Outcomes Among Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - A Scoping Review.Circulation reports · 2026Review
- Experts' recommendations for the management of adult patients with cardiogenic shock.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic Shock Systems of Care Best Practices, Part 3: Regionalization of Care, Organizational Components, and Critical Care Transport Medicine.US cardiology · 2026Review
- Cardiogenic Shock Systems of Care Best Practices. Part 2: The Shock Team and Inpatient Management.US cardiology · 2026Review
- From innovation to implementation: expanding global access to mechanical circulatory support and heart transplantation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Higher hospital volume is associated with lower mortality for patients with cardiogenic shock and mechanical circulatory support.European journal of heart failure · 2025Article
- Prehospital Prediction of Cardiogenic Shock Among Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: The EARLY SHOCK Score.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Application of the Updated Cardiogenic Shock Working Group SCAI Classification for Cardiogenic Shock: A Single-Centre Analysis.The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2025Article
- Comparison of a directWorld journal of transplantation · 2025Article
- Defying the Odds: Survival After Amniotic Fluid Embolism and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support.JACC. Case reports · 2025Article
- Immediate post-ECPR management strategies in the prehospital and critical care transport medicine environments.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Review
- Evolution of Critical Care Cardiology: An Update on Structure, Care Delivery, Training, and Research Paradigms: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Lactate in Heart Failure.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Phase-Specific Hemodynamic Criteria and Outcomes in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Receiving Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- SCAI/EAPCI/ACVC Expert Consensus Statement on Cardiogenic Shock in Women: This statement was endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA).Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- ANMCO position paper: functional reorganization of Intensive Cardiac Care Units (ICCUs) in Italy: Evolution of ICCUs: Growing Needs and the Necessity of a Network With Varying Levels of Care Complexity.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock (CS) portends high morbidity and mortality in the contemporary era. Despite advances in temporary mechanical circulatory supports (MCS), their routine use in CS to improve outcomes has not been established. Delays in diagnosis and timely delivery of care, disparities in accessing adjunct therapies such revascularization or MCS, and lack of a systematic approach to care of CS contribute to the poor outcomes observed in CS patients. There is growing interest for developing a standardized multidisciplinary team-based approach in the management of CS. Recent prospective studies have shown feasibility of CS teams in improving survival across a spectrum of CS presentations. Herein, we will review the rationale for CS teams focusing on evidence supporting its use in streamlining care, optimizing revascularization strategies, and patient identification and MCS selection. The proposed structure and flow of CS teams will be outlined. An in-depth analysis of four recent studies demonstrating improved outcomes with CS teams is presented. Finally, we will explore potential implementation hurdles and future directions in refining and widespread implementation of dedicated cross-specialty CS teams.
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.