ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- In-Hospital Mortality of Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Prospective Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Assessing the clinical impact of albumin infusion in critically ill ICU patients with acute myocardial infarction and hypoalbuminemia: a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Association Between Nursing Diagnoses and Mortality in Patients with Cardiac Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Clinics and practice · 2026Article
- Development and validation of an in-hospital cardiogenic shock prediction model for AMI patients based on machine learning.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Article
- Effects of Left Ventricular Unloading on Cardiac Function, Heart Failure Markers, and Autophagy in Rat Hearts with Acute Myocardial Infarction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Factors Associated with Mortality Risk in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock Post-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Insights from a Regional Centre in Northwest Romania.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Observational
- Case report: ST-elevation myocardial infarction complications. How far will you go?Future cardiology · 2025Article
- Macrophage-enriched Sectm1a promotes efficient efferocytosis to attenuate ischemia/reperfusion-induced cardiac injury.JCI insight · 2024Article
- Outcomes of Patients With Cancer With Myocardial Infarction-Associated Cardiogenic Shock Managed With Mechanical Circulatory Support.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite an improvement in pharmacological therapies and mechanical reperfusion, the outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is still suboptimal, especially in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). The incidence of CS accounts for 3-15% of AMI cases, with mortality rates of 40% to 50%. In contrast to a large number of trials conducted in patients with AMI without CS, there is limited evidence-based scientific knowledge in the CS setting. Therefore, recommendations and actual treatments are often based on registry data. Similarly, knowledge of the available options in terms of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices is not equally widespread, leading to an underutilisation or even overutilisation in different regions/countries of these treatment options and nonuniformity in the management of CS. The aim of this article is to provide a critical overview of the available literature on the management of CS as a complication of AMI, summarising the most recent evidence on revascularisation strategies, pharmacological treatments and MCS use.
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.