ArticleEuropean heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology2021
Cardioprotective shock management: monitoring and supportive therapies.
Article in European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extrapericardic hematoma with bleeding secondary to rib fracture as a cause of Impella CP suction alarm.Cardiology journal · 2026Article
- Managing Arrhythmias in Cardiogenic Shock: Insights Into Milrinone and Dobutamine Therapy.Cureus · 2024Review
- Echocardiogram by apical-subcostal protocol in prone position during invasive mechanical ventilation in cardiovascular intensive care unit.Cardiovascular ultrasound · 2024Article
- Opportunistic CT-derived analysis of fat and muscle tissue composition predicts mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in combination with Levosimendan as a bridge to recovery for a case of severe yew intoxication in a 13-year-old patient.Clinical case reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock is a highly lethal syndrome, leading to rapid death or secondary multiorgan damage, but current shock therapies, including mechanical support devices, also have a significant side effect profile. The overarching goal of shock therapy is ensuring long-term survival with good quality of life. This implies averting death, modifying the disease course by promoting heart recovery and avoiding additional cardiac damage, protecting other organs, and circumventing complications. Monitoring and supportive therapies are subordinate to these goals. Rather than merely following preconceived notions, the rapid evolution in mechanical support technology requires iterative and critical review of the benefits of current procedures, protocols and drugs in view of their overall contribution to the therapeutic goals. This article discusses various monitoring and supportive pharmaceutical modalities typically used in patients with cardiogenic shock requiring mechanical support.
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.