ArticleCritical care (London, England)2024
Scrutinizing mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock: Have we jumped the gun?
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementation of a standardized Impella-specific management pathway in cardiogenic shock.Journal of intensive care · 2026Article
- Ventricular arrhythmia ablation timing and outcomes in electrical STORM requiring V-A ECMO support: the STORM-ECMO study.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adults with cardiogenic shock.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock: microaxial flow pumps for all and VA-ECMO consigned to the museum?Critical care (London, England) · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite increasing therapeutic options and disposable resources, cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a formidable condition with high mortality. Today, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and microaxial flow devices (Impella, Abiomed, Danvers, USA) are established forms of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in CS, with increasing application over the years. Despite this trend, incorporation into current ESC (Class IIa, evidence C) and AHA/ACC (Class IIa, evidence B-NR) guidelines is based nearly exclusively on observational results. Despite these recommendations and increasing application, current evidence from randomized controlled trials has not provided clear mortality benefit. Thus, reflection on current evidence is hereby justified.
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.