ArticleEuropean heart journal. Case reports2024
Has the role of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction been fully determined? A case report.
Article in European heart journal. Case reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimization of norepinephrine dosage for hemodynamic stability during ECMO support in refractory shock: a retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The persistent challenge of high mortality rates in acute myocardial infarction-induced cardiogenic shock endures notwithstanding advancements in the diagnosis and treatment of this disease over the past two decades. While recent studies present conflicting evidence on the efficacy of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO), observational research supports the benefits of early VA ECMO initiation. However, the current lack of robust support from randomized clinical trials for VA ECMO use in this context highlights the ongoing uncertainty surrounding its effectiveness. Case summary: A 52-year-old male with sudden, intense chest pain was diagnosed with cardiogenic shock due to non-ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction at a local hospital. Initial treatment included aspirin, clopidogrel, and noradrenaline. Upon transfer to our hospital, the patient's condition deteriorated, leading to acute respiratory distress and severe hypotension. Prior to emergent percutaneous coronary intervention, peripheral VA ECMO was initiated. Coronary angiography revealed left main coronary artery occlusion, and a successful intervention was performed. Post-intervention, the patient's haemodynamic parameters significantly improved, and after 7 days, ECMO was successfully discontinued. The patient was discharged in stable condition after 25 days, with favourable outcomes persisting at the 30-day mark. Continuous monitoring is planned during outpatient follow-up. Discussion: The clinical case illustrates a successful treatment outcome achieved through teamwork by the heart team, supporting the efficacy of the VA ECMO pre-percutaneous coronary intervention approach. The careful selection of appropriate candidates and strategic initiation of VA ECMO may play a role in enhancing outcomes for individuals experiencing acute myocardial infarction complicated by challenging cardiogenic shock.
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.