ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Bridge to Life: Current Landscape of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Heart-Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impacts of Hemodynamic Support on Ventricular Arrhythmia Ablation.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Article
- Temporary Mechanical Support in Cardiogenic Shock Secondary to Heart Failure: An Evolving Paradigm.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- A predictive model for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock during hospitalization.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Advancing LVAD Technology: Overcoming Challenges and Shaping the Future of Mechanical Circulatory Support.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Percutaneous Atrial Septostomy in Adult Patients on Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Cardiogenic Shock: A Canadian Single-Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Use of Intravascular Micro-Axial Left Ventricular Assist Devices as a Bridging Strategy for Cardiogenic Shock: Mid-Term Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute heart failure (HF) presents a significant mortality burden, necessitating continuous therapeutic advancements. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is crucial in managing cardiogenic shock (CS) secondary to acute HF, serving as a bridge to recovery or durable support. Currently, MCS options include the Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP), TandemHeart (TH), Impella, and Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA-ECMO), each offering unique benefits and risks tailored to patient-specific factors and clinical scenarios. This review examines the clinical implications of recent advancements in temporary MCS, identifies knowledge gaps, and explores promising avenues for future research and clinical application. Understanding each device's unique attributes is crucial for their efficient implementation in various clinical scenarios, ultimately advancing towards intelligent, personalized support strategies.
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.