Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36847990›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2023

Review of Pathophysiology of Cardiogenic Shock and Escalation of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.

Mohit Pahuja, Charan Yerasi, Phillip H Lam, Hayder Hashim, Itsik Ben-Dor, Nelson L Bernardo, Lowell F Satler, Farooq H Sheikh, Samer S Najjar, Ezequiel J Molina and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Mohit PahujaDepartment of Cardiology, MedStar Georgetown University/Washington Hospital Center, 110 Irving St., NW, Suite 4B-1, Washington D.C., 20010, USA.
Charan YerasiDepartment of Cardiology, MedStar Georgetown University/Washington Hospital Center, 110 Irving St., NW, Suite 4B-1, Washington D.C., 20010, USA.
Phillip H LamDepartment of Cardiology, MedStar Georgetown University/Washington Hospital Center, 110 Irving St., NW, Suite 4B-1, Washington D.C., 20010, USA.
Hayder HashimDepartment of Cardiology, MedStar Georgetown University/Washington Hospital Center, 110 Irving St., NW, Suite 4B-1, Washington D.C., 20010, USA.
Itsik Ben-DorDepartment of Cardiology, MedStar Georgetown University/Washington Hospital Center, 110 Irving St., NW, Suite 4B-1, Washington D.C., 20010, USA.
Nelson L BernardoDepartment of Cardiology, MedStar Georgetown University/Washington Hospital Center, 110 Irving St., NW, Suite 4B-1, Washington D.C., 20010, USA.
Lowell F SatlerDepartment of Cardiology, MedStar Georgetown University/Washington Hospital Center, 110 Irving St., NW, Suite 4B-1, Washington D.C., 20010, USA.
Farooq H SheikhDepartment of Cardiology, MedStar Georgetown University/Washington Hospital Center, 110 Irving St., NW, Suite 4B-1, Washington D.C., 20010, USA.
Samer S NajjarDepartment of Cardiology, MedStar Georgetown University/Washington Hospital Center, 110 Irving St., NW, Suite 4B-1, Washington D.C., 20010, USA.
Ezequiel J MolinaDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University/Washington Hospital Center, Washington D.C., USA.
Ron WaksmanDepartment of Cardiology, MedStar Georgetown University/Washington Hospital Center, 110 Irving St., NW, Suite 4B-1, Washington D.C., 20010, USA. ron.waksman@medstar.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4063-9226
Georgetown University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewCardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex clinical entity that continues to carry a high risk of mortality. The landscape of CS management has changed with the advent of several temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices designed to provide hemodynamic support. It remains challenging to understand the role of different temporary MCS devices in patients with CS, as many of these patients are critically ill, requiring complex care with multiple MCS device options. Each temporary MCS device can provide different types and levels of hemodynamic support. It is important to understand the risk/benefit profile of each one of them for appropriate device selection in patients with CS. RECENT

findingsMCS may be beneficial in CS patients through augmentation of cardiac output with subsequent improvement of systemic perfusion. Selecting the optimal MCS device depends on several variables including the underlying etiology of CS, clinical strategy of MCS use (bridge to recovery, bridge to transplant or durable MCS, or abridge to decision), amount of hemodynamic support needed, associated respiratory failure, and institutional preference. Furthermore, it is even more challenging to determine the appropriate time to escalate from one MCS device to another or combine different MCS devices. In this review, we discuss the current available data published in the literature on the management of CS and propose a standardized approach for escalation of MCS devices in patients with CS. Shock teams can play an important role to help in hemodynamic-guided management and algorithm-based step-by-step approach in early initiation and escalation of temporary MCS devices at different stages of CS. It is important to define the etiology of CS, and stage of shock and recognize univentricular vs biventricular shock for appropriate device selection and escalation of therapy.

Indexed as

Extracorporeal Membrane OxygenationHeart-Assist DevicesHemodynamicsHumansRisk AssessmentShock, CardiogenicCardiogenic shockHeart failureHemodynamic supportMechanical circulatory supportShock team

Identifiers

PMID36847990
OpenAlexW4322495773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.