ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2024
Complications and Outcomes in 39,864 Patients Receiving Standard Care Plus Mechanical Circulatory Support or Standard Care Alone for Infarct-Associated Cardiogenic Shock.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Resource utilization associated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation vs. microaxial flow pump for infarct-related cardiogenic shock.European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care · 2025Pooled it
- Blueprint for Building and Sustaining a Cardiogenic Shock Program: Qualitative Survey of 12 US Programs.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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTemporary mechanical circulatory support devices (tMCS) are increasingly being used in patients with infarct-associated cardiogenic shock (AMICS). Evidence on patient selection, complications and long-term outcomes is lacking. We aim to investigate differences in clinical characteristics, complications and outcomes between patients receiving no tMCS or either intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO) or Impella
methodsUsing health claim data from AOK-Die Gesundheitskasse (local health care funds), we retrospectively analysed complications and outcomes of all insured patients with AMICS between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2017.
resultsA total of 39,864 patients were included (IABP 5451; Impella 776; V-A ECMO 833; no tMCS 32,804). In-hospital complications, including renal failure requiring dialysis (50.3% V-A ECMO vs. 30.5% Impella vs. 29.2 IABP vs. 12.1% no tMCS), major bleeding (38.1% vs. 20.9% vs. 18.0% vs. 9.3%) and sepsis (22.5% vs. 15.9% vs. 13.9% vs. 9.3%) were more common in V-A ECMO patients. In a multivariate analysis, the use of both V-A ECMO (HR 1.57,
conclusionsOur data show noticeably more in-hospital complications in patients on tMCS and higher mortality with V-A ECMO and Impella. The use of both devices is an independent risk factor for mortality, whereas the use of IABP is associated with a survival benefit.
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.