ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Gender Differences in Cardiogenic Shock Patients: Clinical Features, Risk Prediction, and Outcomes in a Hub Center.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 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
- Sex-Specific Differences in Management and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock Patients With and Without Ischemic Cardiomyopathy.Korean circulation journal · 2025Article
- Trends in Mortality Among Adults With Acute Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock in the United States, 1999-2023.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 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
- Predictors and Impact of Cardiogenic Shock in Oldest-Old ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Takotsubo Syndrome: Sex-Related Differences.Journal of the American Heart Association · 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.