ReviewCardiology and therapy2022
Phenotyping and Hemodynamic Assessment in Cardiogenic Shock: From Physiology to Clinical Application.
Review in Cardiology and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic Utility of Pulmonary Arterial Elastance in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Classified as Killip Classes 3-4.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- SCAI Staging Application for Acute Myocardial Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock at a Single-Center Russian Registry.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Extending the 'host response' paradigm from sepsis to cardiogenic shock: evidence, limitations and opportunities.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Review
- How to Do Echo for Noninvasive Hemodynamic Evaluation of the Patient in the Intensive Care Unit: A Consensus Statement of the Italian Society of Echocardiography and Cardiovascular Imaging.Journal of cardiovascular echographyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is growing interest in invasive hemodynamic assessment in cardiogenic shock, primarily due to the widespread adoption of mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Invasive hemodynamic assessment is central to two aspects of cardiogenic shock management: (1) the phenotyping of cardiogenic shock, and (2) the assessment of response to therapy. Phenotyping of cardiogenic shock serves to guide timely therapeutic intervention, and the assessment of hemodynamic response to therapy directs the escalation or de-escalation of therapy, including MCS. This review aims to discuss these two aspects of hemodynamic assessment in cardiogenic shock. Firstly, the physiologic underpinnings of a phenotyping schema, and the implication of the cardiogenic shock phenotype on the MCS strategy in cardiogenic shock will be discussed. Secondly, the concept of cardiac power output and 'effective' oxygen delivery will be discussed in relation to hemodynamic response to therapy in cardiogenic shock.
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.