Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35911539›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022

Gender Differences in Cardiogenic Shock Patients: Clinical Features, Risk Prediction, and Outcomes in a Hub Center.

Sara Lozano-Jiménez, Reyes Iranzo-Valero, Javier Segovia-Cubero, Manuel Gómez-Bueno, Mercedes Rivas-Lasarte, Cristina Mitroi, Juan Manuel Escudier-Villa, Juan Francisco Oteo-Dominguez, Jose María Vieitez-Florez, Susana Villar-García and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sara Lozano-JiménezDepartment of Cardiology, Hospital Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain.
Reyes Iranzo-ValeroDepartment of Anesthesiology, Hospital Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain.
Javier Segovia-CuberoDepartment of Cardiology, Hospital Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain.
Manuel Gómez-BuenoDepartment of Cardiology, Hospital Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain.
Mercedes Rivas-LasarteDepartment of Cardiology, Hospital Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain.
Cristina MitroiDepartment of Cardiology, Hospital Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain.
Juan Manuel Escudier-VillaDepartment of Cardiology, Hospital Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain.
Juan Francisco Oteo-DominguezDepartment of Cardiology, Hospital Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain.
Jose María Vieitez-FlorezDepartment of Cardiology, Hospital Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain.
Susana Villar-GarcíaDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Hospital Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain.
Francisco José Hernández-PérezDepartment of Cardiology, Hospital Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain.
Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda · ESCentro de Investigación en Red en Enfermedades Cardiovasculares · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: There is scarce knowledge about gender differences in clinical presentation, management, use of risk stratification tools and prognosis in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients. Purpose: The primary endpoint was to investigate the differences in characteristics, management, and in-hospital mortality according to gender in a cohort of CS patients admitted to a tertiary hub center. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the prognostic performance of the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) classification in predicting in-hospital mortality according to sex. Methods: This is a retrospective single-Center cohort study of CS patients treated by a multidisciplinary shock team between September 2014 and December 2020. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes according to gender were registered. Discrimination of SCAI classification was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: Overall, 163 patients were included, 39 of them female (24%). Mean age of the overall cohort was 55 years (44-62), similar between groups. Compared with men, women were less likely to be smokers and the prevalence of COPD and diabetes mellitus was significantly lower in this group ( Conclusions: Only one in four of patients treated at a dedicated CS team were female. This may reflect differences in prevalence of severe heart disease at young (<65) ages, although a patient-selection bias cannot be ruled out. In this very high-risk CS population of multiple etiologies, overall, in-hospital survival was slightly above 50% and showed no differences between sexes. Treatment approaches, procedures, and SCAI risk stratification performance did not show gender disparities among treated patients.

Indexed as

cardiogenic shockgenderheart failuremortalityprognosisSCAI classification

Identifiers

PMID35911539
PMCPMC9326060
OpenAlexW4285088317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.