ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices for the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction-A Review.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of serum albumin levels before IMPELLA insertion on mortality risk in patients with cardiogenic shock.Heart and vessels · 2025Article
- Ventricular Septal Rupture as a Complication of Acute Myocardial Infarction: Clinical Characteristics and Prognostic Comparison of Different Treatment Methods.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2025Article
- Lactate Monitoring in Intensive Care: A Comprehensive Review of Its Utility and Interpretation.Cureus · 2024Review
- Prognostic Value of the Advanced Lung Cancer Inflammation Index Ratio in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: A Cohort Study.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Cardiogenic shock etiology and exit strategy impact survival in patients with Impella 5.5.The International journal of artificial organs · 2024Article
- Safety and Outcomes of Peripherally Administered Vasopressor Infusion in Patients Admitted with Shock to an Intensive Cardiac Care Unit-A Single-Center Prospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Cardiac Troponin I but Not N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide Predicts Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Prognostic Value of the AST/ALT Ratio versus Bilirubin in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Does Albumin Predict the Risk of Mortality in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock?International journal of molecular sciences · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction is a complex clinical condition associated with dismal prognosis. Routine early target vessel revascularization remains the most effective treatment to substantially improve outcomes, but mortality remains high. Temporary circulatory support devices have emerged with the aim to enhance cardiac unloading and improve end-organ perfusion. However, quality evidence to guide device selection, optimal installation timing, and post-implantation management are scarce, stressing the importance of multidisciplinary expert care. This review focuses on the contemporary use of short-term support devices in the setting of cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction, including the common challenges associated this practice.
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.