ReviewHeart failure reviews2022
Risk stratification in cardiogenic shock: a focus on the available evidence.
Review in Heart failure reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Admission Serum Sodium as an Early Integrative Marker of Shock Severity in Acute Myocardial Infarction-Complicated Cardiogenic Shock.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Lactylation and lactate: insights into muscle cell epigenetic regulators in exercise.Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Review
- Troponin predicts mortality in heart failure-related cardiogenic shock.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Phase-Specific Hemodynamic Criteria and Outcomes in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Receiving Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Current and novel biomarkers in cardiogenic shock.European journal of heart failure · 2025Review
- Case report: ST-elevation myocardial infarction complications. How far will you go?Future cardiology · 2025Article
- PiCCO or Cardiac Ultrasound? Which Is Better for Hemodynamic Monitoring in ICU?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Decoding cardiogenic shock: assessing shock index and its variants as prognostic indicators for in-hospital mortality.ESC heart failure · 2024Article
- The Association between Cardiac Arrest and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Percutaneous Microaxial Ventricular Assist Device Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for Nonacute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: Systematic Review of Survival Predictors.American journal of medicine open · 2023Review
- Review
- Blood urea nitrogen and in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients with MI or cardiogenic shock: Analysis of the MIMIC-IV database.JRSM cardiovascular diseaseArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock is a clinical syndrome which is defined as the presence of primary cardiac disorder that results in hypotension together with signs of organ hypoperfusion in the state of normovolaemia or hypervolaemia. It represents a complex life-threatening condition, characterized by a high mortality rate, that requires urgent diagnostic assessment as well as treatment; therefore, it is of paramount important to advocate for a thorough risk stratification. In fact, the early identification of patients that could benefit the most from more aggressive and invasive approaches could facilitate a more efficient resource allocation. This review attempts to critically analyse the current evidence on prognosis in cardiogenic shock, focusing in particular on clinical, laboratoristic and echocardiographic prognostic parameters. Furthermore, it focuses also on the available prognostic scores, highlighting the strengths and the possible pitfalls. Finally, it provides insights into future direction that could be followed in order to ameliorate risk stratification in this delicate subset of patients.
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.