Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38213746›Full record

ReviewInterventional cardiology (London, England)2023

Peripartum Cardiogenic Shock and Mechanical Circulatory Support.

Giulia Botti, Sharmaine Thirunavukarasu, Francesca Ziviello, Alaide Chieffo

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Interventional cardiology (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The application of mechanical circulatory support in special conditions.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Giulia BottiInterventional Cardiology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute Milan, Italy.
Sharmaine ThirunavukarasuLeeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds Leeds, UK.
Francesca ZivielloInterventional Cardiology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute Milan, Italy.
Alaide ChieffoInterventional Cardiology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute Milan, Italy.
Vita-Salute San Raffaele University · ITUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite remarkable improvements in the past two decades, the annual cardiovascular mortality rate has remained higher for women than for men. Pregnant women represent an underinvestigated population in clinical research, and the mechanisms of long-term cardiovascular complications in women with obstetric complications remain to be elucidated. Regarding advanced heart failure during pregnancy, interventional approaches are effective but still underutilised. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support is a valuable option for peripartum cardiogenic shock, although its use during pregnancy is still limited. Survival rates have improved in recent years, but further emphasis on the importance of early recognition and initiation of heart failure treatment in this patient group is warranted. The aims of this review are to summarise the current literature on the implementation of mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock during pregnancy and delivery and to understand the role of percutaneous ventricular assist devices in the management of such conditions.

Indexed as

Cardiogenic shockmechanical circulatory supportpercutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVAD)pregnancy

Identifiers

PMID38213746
PMCPMC10782424
OpenAlexW4389205560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.