ReviewAnnals of intensive care2024
Management of cardiogenic shock: a narrative review.
Review in Annals of intensive care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.
- Concurrent intra-aortic balloon pump and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute coronary syndrome-related cardiogenic shock: A meta-analysis of multivariate studies.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2025Pooled it
- Integrating bibliometric analysis and external validation of the SAVE score in VA-ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock: insights from global trends and the MIMIC-IV database.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Timing of IABP initiation and its impact on outcomes in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: insights from a bi-center retrospective study.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Temporal and demographic trends in cardiogenic shock and chronic ischemic heart disease-related mortality among U.S adults aged 45 years and older: a 25 year nationwide analysis with ARIMA forecasting.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic Shock: Clinical Management, Outcomes and Future Directions.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Arterial Blood Gas and Electrolyte Analyses in Heart Failure.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Efficacy and safety of dobutamine versus milrinone in cardiogenic shock: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Global cardiology science & practice · 2026Article
- Short-Term Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Coronary Syndrome with Cardiogenic Shock: Which Device to Choose?Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Mental health sequelae and management in survivors of cardiogenic shock: a nationwide population-based study.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Respiratory Support in Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema: Clinical Insights from Cardiology and Intensive Care.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- An Integrative Review of the Cardiovascular Disease Spectrum: Integrating Multi-Omics and Artificial Intelligence for Precision Cardiology.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Experts' recommendations for the management of adult patients with cardiogenic shock.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- A case report of cardiogenic shock with transcranial color-coded ultrasound monitoring under ECMO.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Reversible Atrial Fibrillation and Cardiogenic Shock Following Acute Aluminum Phosphide Poisoning: A Case Report and Literature Review.Clinical medicine insights. Case reports · 2026Article
- Lactate/albumin ratio predicts 90-day mortality of cardiogenic shock patients.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2026Article
- Universal Early Discharge Protocol for Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Single-Center Prospective Validation.Vascular health and risk management · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic shock: a review of contemporary approaches and ongoing challenges.Future cardiology · 2025Review
- The Introduction of Impella 5.5 in Cardiogenic Shock: A Single-Center, Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Impella 5.5 use in women: A multicenter study.JHLT open · 2025Article
- Mortality trends related to cardiogenic shock in heart failure patients aged 25 and older across the United States: A study utilizing the CDC WONDER database from 1999 to 2023.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock (CS) is characterized by low cardiac output and sustained tissue hypoperfusion that may result in end-organ dysfunction and death. CS is associated with high short-term mortality, and its management remains challenging despite recent advances in therapeutic options. Timely diagnosis and multidisciplinary team-based management have demonstrated favourable effects on outcomes. We aimed to review evidence-based practices for managing patients with ischemic and non-ischemic CS, detailing the multi-organ supports needed in this critically ill patient population.
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.