ArticleJournal of cardiac failure2021
De Novo vs Acute-on-Chronic Presentations of Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Insights from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry.
Article in Journal of cardiac failure, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 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
44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 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
- Sex differences in treatments and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and epidemiological meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Haemodynamic effects of istaroxime in SCAI stage B HF-related cardiogenic shock: Insights from the SEISMiC trial.ESC heart failure · 2025Trial
- Device-Related Adverse Events and Outcomes in Patients With Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support Placed at Referral Centers Versus Cardiogenic Shock Hub Centers: An Observational Analysis.Circulation. Heart failure · 2026Observational
- Levosimendan in Cardiogenic Shock: A Review of Mechanisms, Clinical Evidence, and Therapeutic Use.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- CalShock: beyond the shock team, building on California's cardiogenic shock system of care.Heart failure reviews · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic Shock Management in the Modern Era: A Narrative Review of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- A Proposed Algorithm for the Management of Patients with Cardiogenic Shock Based on Contemporary Knowledge and Gaps in Evidence.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Cardiogenic shock: a review of contemporary approaches and ongoing challenges.Future cardiology · 2025Review
- Article
- Impact of standardized team-based care on cardiogenic shock outcomes over time.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Special topics: heart failure-related cardiogenic shock, valvular heart disease and end-stage renal disease. Part 4 of the International Expert Opinion Series on Acute Heart Failure Management.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Impact of comorbidity burden on outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock: A Cardiogenic Shock Working Group analysis.European journal of heart failure · 2025Article
- Epidemiology and Prognostic Significance of Acute Noncardiac Organ Dysfunction Across Cardiogenic Shock Subtypes.Journal of cardiac failure · 2025Observational
- Apparent End-Stage Heart Failure Forced Toward a Successful Myocardial Recovery.JACC. Case reports · 2025Article
- Treatment of heart failure related cardiogenic shock: Time to fill the evidence gap.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- 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
- 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
- Temporary Mechanical Support in Cardiogenic Shock Secondary to Heart Failure: An Evolving Paradigm.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- The role of temporary mechanical circulatory support in heart failure.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
29 authors at 20 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHeart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for an increasing proportion of cases of CS in contemporary cardiac intensive care units. Whether the chronicity of HF identifies distinct clinical profiles of HF-CS is unknown. METHODS AND
resultsWe evaluated admissions to cardiac intensive care units for HF-CS in 28 centers using data from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network registry (2017-2020). HF-CS was defined as CS due to ventricular failure in the absence of acute myocardial infarction and was classified as de novo vs acute-on-chronic based on the absence or presence of a prior diagnosis of HF, respectively. Clinical features, resource use, and outcomes were compared among groups. Of 1405 admissions with HF-CS, 370 had de novo HF-CS (26.3%), and 1035 had acute-on-chronic HF-CS (73.7%). Patients with de novo HF-CS had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and chronic kidney disease (all P < 0.01). Median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were higher in those with de novo HF-CS (8; 25th-75th: 5-11) vs acute-on-chronic HF-CS (6; 25th-75th: 4-9, P < 0.01), as was the proportion of Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock stage E (46.1% vs 26.1%, P < 0.01). After adjustment for clinical covariates and preceding cardiac arrest, the risk of in-hospital mortality was higher in patients with de novo HF-CS than in those with acute-on-chronic HF-CS (adjusted hazard ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.75, P = 0.02).
conclusionsDespite having fewer comorbidities, patients with de novo HF-CS had more severe shock presentations and worse in-hospital outcomes. Whether HF disease chronicity is associated with time-dependent compensatory adaptations, unique pathobiological features and responses to treatment in patients presenting with HF-CS warrants further investigation.
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.