ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023
Defining levels of care in cardiogenic shock.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiogenic Shock Centers and Protocols for Acute Cardiovascular Care: Bridging the Gap Between Spoke and Hub Sites.Cardiology and therapy · 2026Review
- Sex Differences in Non-Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock: Insights from the Northwell-Shock Registry.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- In a quest for better outcome prediction in cardiogenic shock.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Profiling of Cardiogenic Shock: Incorporating Machine Learning Into Bedside Management.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Review
- The Price We Pay for Progression in Shock Care: Economic Burden, Accessibility, and Adoption of Shock-Teams and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Expert opinion and professional society statements have called for multi-tier care systems for the management of cardiogenic shock (CS). However, little is known about how to pragmatically define centers with different levels of care (LOC) for CS. Methods: Eleven of 23 hospitals within our healthcare system sharing a common electronic health record were classified as different LOC according to their highest mechanical circulatory support (MCS) capabilities: Level 1 (L-1)-durable left ventricular assist device, Level 1A (L-1A)-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Level 2 (L-2)-intra-aortic balloon pump and percutaneous ventricular assist device; and Level 3 (L-3)-no MCS. All adult patients treated for CS (International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10 code R57.0) between 2016 and 2022 were included. Etiologies of CS were identified using associated diagnostic codes. Management strategies and outcomes across LOC were compared. Results: Higher LOC centers had higher volumes: L-1 ( Conclusion: This is the first report describing a pragmatic classification of LOC for CS which, based on MCS capabilities, can discriminate between centers with distinct demographics, practice patterns, and outcomes. This classification may serve as the basis for future research and the creation of CS systems of care.
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.