ReviewJACC. Advances2022
Advances in the Staging and Phenotyping of Cardiogenic Shock: Part 1 of 2.
Review in JACC. Advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiogenic Shock Centers and Protocols for Acute Cardiovascular Care: Bridging the Gap Between Spoke and Hub Sites.Cardiology and therapy · 2026Review
- Clinical cardiac phenotype beyond ejection fraction: a missing dimension in prognostication of VA-ECMO outcomes in cardiogenic shock.Journal of intensive care · 2026Article
- Temporary mechanical circulatory support in fulminant myocarditis: can global collaborations bridge the gap?Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Cardiac Critical Care in 2025 and in 2035.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- Why Molecular Subphenotyping Is Needed in Cardiogenic Shock and How to Accomplish This.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Article
- Identifying biomarker-driven subphenotypes of cardiogenic shock: analysis of prospective cohorts and randomized controlled trials.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Mixed Cardiogenic-Vasodilatory Shock: Current Insights and Future Directions.JACC. Advances · 2025Review
- Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Valvular Cardiogenic Shock.JACC. Advances · 2024Article
- Management of cardiogenic shock: state-of-the-art.Intensive care medicine · 2024Review
- Targeted proteomic profiling of cardiogenic shock in the cardiac intensive care unit.European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care · 2024Article
- Circulating Proteome Analysis Identifies Reduced Inflammation After Initiation of Hemodynamic Support with Either Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation or Impella in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2024Article
- The management of heart failure cardiogenic shock: an international RAND appropriateness panel.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Article
- Clinical phenotypes of cardiogenic shock survivors: insights into late host responses and long-term outcomes.ESC heart failure · 2024Observational
- Admission Total Leukocyte Count as a Predictor of Mortality in Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Patients.JACC. Advances · 2024Article
- Serial Assessment of Shock Severity in Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Patients.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Article
- Clinical Trials in Cardiogenic Shock: Challenges and Solutions for the Future.JACC. Advances · 2023Article
- Extending the 'host response' paradigm from sepsis to cardiogenic shock: evidence, limitations and opportunities.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Review
- Milrinone vs Dobutamine for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock: Implications of Renal Function and Injury.JACC. Advances · 2023Article
- The impact of COVID-19 infection on outcomes of patients hospitalized for non-acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Consistency of Cardiogenic Shock Subphenotypes and Their Association With Mortality.JACC. Advances · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a heterogeneous syndrome reflecting a broad spectrum of shock severity, diverse etiologies, variable cardiac function, different hemodynamic trajectories, and concomitant organ dysfunction. These factors influence the clinical presentation, management, response to therapy, and outcomes of CS patients, necessitating a tailored approach to care. To better understand the variability inherent to CS populations, recent algorithms for staging the severity of CS have been described and validated. This paper is part 1 of a 2-part state-of-the-art review. In this first article, we consider the context for clinical staging and stratification in CS with a focus on established severity staging systems for CS and their use for risk stratification and clinical care. We describe the use of staging for predicting outcomes in populations with or at risk for CS, including risk modifiers that provide more nuanced risk stratification, and highlight how these approaches may allow individualized care.
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.