Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38505065›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024

Prognostic implication of Vasoactive Inotropic Score in adult patients with cardiogenic shock on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Yao Hu, Liangshan Wang, Feng Yang, Xiaomeng Wang, Shuai Zhang, Xing Hao, Hong Wang, Xiaotong Hou

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Current insights on temporary mechanical circulatory support in adults with post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock.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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yao HuCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Liangshan WangCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Feng YangCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xiaomeng WangCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Shuai ZhangCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xing HaoCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Hong WangCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xiaotong HouCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Capital Medical University · CNBeijing Anzhen Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Vasopressors and inotropes are crucial in managing cardiogenic shock (CS) as they enhance microcirculation in patients. Numerous studies have demonstrated the adverse outcomes associated with excessive use of vasoactive drugs and the vasoactive drug scoring system has emerged as a valuable prognostic tool, particularly in pediatric patients. This study aimed to examine the prognostic significance of the Vasoactive Inotropic Score (VIS) in adult patients with CS receiving veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) treatment. Methods: This retrospective multi-center study involved 2,453 adult patients who underwent VA-ECMO in China between 2015 and 2021. Among them, 1,742 adult patients with CS following VA-ECMO were finally included. The maximum VIS (VISmax) was determined by considering the highest doses of vasoactive and inotropic drugs administered within the first 6 hours before ECMO initiation. Based on the VISmax, patients were classified into two groups: 0-20 and >20. The primary outcome of this study was in-hospital mortality. Results: A total of 1,146 patients were included in the high VISmax group, while 596 patients were assigned to the low VISmax group. Overall, 882 (50.6%) patients experienced in-hospital mortality, with significantly higher rates observed among those with higher VISmax scores (41.4% for VIS ≤20 versus 68.3% for VIS >20; P<0.001). Similar trends were observed for 30-day mortality (40.7% for VIS ≤20 versus 64.9% for VIS >20; P<0.001). Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated that a VIS score exceeding 20 independently predicted in-hospital mortality [odds ratio (OR) 2.64; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.10-3.33; P<0.001]. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed that VIS had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.65 (95% CI: 0.63-0.68; P<0.001) as a predictor of in-hospital mortality, with an optimal cutoff value of 20.1. Moreover, the VIS exhibited good predictive ability for in-hospital mortality in patients with acute myocarditis (AUC 0.70; 95% CI: 0.63-0.78; P<0.001). Conclusions: Firstly, higher maximum level of VIS within the first 6 hours before ECMO initiation independently predicted poorer clinical outcomes in patients supported with ECMO for CS. Secondly, VIS exceeding 20 was significantly associated with increased risks of in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality. Thirdly, when categorized by the cause of CS, a high VIS exhibited good predictive ability in patients with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and acute myocarditis.

Indexed as

Cardiogenic shock (CS)extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)prognostic implicationVasoactive Inotropic Score (VIS)

Identifiers

PMID38505065
PMCPMC10944791
OpenAlexW4392106192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.