ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2022
The Use of Mechanical Circulatory Assist Devices for ACS Patients with Cardiogenic Shock and High-Risk PCI.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Deep Learning Model to Guide Personalized Mechanical Circulatory Support Use in Cardiogenic Shock Patients Undergoing PCI.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- The Effect of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock Supported by Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Concomitant percutaneous coronary intervention and transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis complicated with acute STEMI: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThere has been a significant expansion of the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices for patient with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) with cardiogenic shock (CS) and in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous interventions (PCI). The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the indications and outcomes of these devices in high-risk cardiac patients. RECENT
findingsEarly revascularization of the culprit-lesion is the immediate goal in ACS patients with CS and the use of pulmonary artery catheters has been associated with improved outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock. The MCS devices that are used for myocardial support include the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), the left ventricle (LV) to aorta pumps, left atrium (LA) to arterial pumps, and right atrial (RA) to arterial pumps. This review provides an overview on the use of these devices in patients with ACS and CS and those undergoing high-risk PCI. Attention is focused on the IABP, the Impella (LV-aorta pump), the TandemHeart (LA-arterial pump), and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (RA-arterial pump). The indications, evidence, and complications of each device are reviewed. Each device varies in its physiological effect on native heart function, complexity in insertion, and complications. The use of MCS devices for high-risk PCI and CS has increased in recent years and have demonstrated efficacy in supporting a vulnerable myocardium. Although recommendations can be made for use of each device in certain clinical scenarios, further evidence through registries and clinical trials is necessary to guide appropriate device utilization.
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.