ArticleJournal of the Intensive Care Society2022
Outcomes of temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock due to end-stage heart failure.
Article in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Position Statement by the Saudi Heart Failure Working Group of the Saudi Heart Association on the Management of Advanced Heart Failure in Saudi Arabia.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2026Article
- Are there etiology-specific risk factors for adverse outcomes in patients on Impella 5.5 support?JTCVS open · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There are few reports of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) due to end-stage heart failure (ESHF). We evaluated our institutional MCS strategy and compared the outcomes of INTERMACS 1 and 2 patients with CS due to ESHF. Methods: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data (November 2014 to July 2019) from a single centre. ESHF was defined by a diagnosis of HF prior to presentation with CS. Other causes of CS (eg: acute myocardial infarction) were excluded. We compared the clinical course, complications and 90-day survival of patients with CS due to ESHF in INTERMACS profile 1 and 2. Results: We included 60 consecutive patients with CS due to ESHF Differences in baseline characteristics were consistent with the INTERMACS profiles. The duration of MCS was similar between INTERMACS 1 and 2 patients (14 (10-33) vs 15 (7-23) days, p = 0.439). There was no significant difference in the number of patients with complications that required intervention. Compared to INTERMACS 2, INTERMACS 1 patients had more organ dysfunction on support and significant lower 90-day survival (66% vs 34%, p = 0.016). Conclusion: Our temporary MCS strategy, including earlier intervention in patients with CS due to ESHF at INTERMACS 2 was associated with less organ dysfunction and better 90-day survival compared to INTERMACS 1 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.