ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
When to Achieve Complete Revascularization in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies.Intensive care medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Case Report: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in acute coronary syndrome: a rare case of massive left ventricular thrombus.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Complete or incomplete revascularization in patients with left main culprit lesion acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a retrospective observational study.Journal of Yeungnam medical science · 2025Article
- Review of Advancements in Managing Cardiogenic Shock: From Emergency Care Protocols to Long-Term Therapeutic Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Differential Prognostic Impact of IABP-SHOCK II Scores According to Treatment Strategy in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Coronary Syndrome: From the RESCUE Registry.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Interventional Cardiology: Current Challenges in Acute Myocardial Infarction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Influence on emergency digit replantation and outcome assessment after COVID-19 virus nucleic acid testing normalization.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition frequently encountered in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Despite prompt revascularization, in particular, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and therapeutic and technological advances, the mortality rate for patients with CS related to AMI remains unacceptably high. Differently form a hemodynamically stable setting, a culprit lesion-only (CLO) revascularization strategy is currently suggested for AMI-CS patients, based on the results of recent randomized evidence burdened by several limitations and conflicting results from non-randomized studies. Furthermore, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have emerged as a key therapeutic option in CS, especially in the case of their early implantation without delaying revascularization and before irreversible organ damage has occurred. We provide an in-depth review of the current evidence on optimal revascularization strategies of multivessel CAD in infarct-related CS, assessing the role of different types of MCS devices and highlighting the importance of shock teams and medical care system networks to effectively impact on clinical outcomes.
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.