ArticleEuropean journal of heart failure2024
Ventilation strategies in cardiogenic shock: Insights from the AltShock-2 registry.
Article in European journal of heart failure, 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.
- Author Response: Efficacy of Noninvasive Ventilation Compared with Invasive Mechanical Ventilation in Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Efficacy of Non-invasive Ventilation Compared with Invasive Mechanical Ventilation in Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Noninvasive Ventilation in Cardiogenic Shock: Reconsidering Contraindications.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Experts' recommendations for the management of adult patients with cardiogenic shock.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Risk Stratification in Predicting Cardiogenic Shock 30-Day Mortality admitted to ICU: beyond the Prognostic Performance of SHARC and SCAI Classifications.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Respiratory Support and Mortality Risk Across the Spectrum of Cardiogenic Shock Severity.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 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
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo describe the use and the relation to outcome of different ventilation strategies in a contemporary, large, prospective registry of cardiogenic shock patients. METHODS AND
resultsAmong 657 patients enrolled from March 2020 to November 2023, 198 (30.1%) received oxygen therapy (OT), 96 (14.6%) underwent non-invasive ventilation (NIV), and 363 (55.3%) underwent invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV). Patients in the iMV group were significantly younger compared to those in the NIV and OT groups (63 vs. 69 years, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between groups regarding cardiovascular risk factors. Patients with SCAI B and C were more frequently treated with OT and NIV compared to iMV (65.1% and 65.4% vs. 42.6%, respectively, p > 0.001), while the opposite trend was observed in SCAI D patients (12% and 12.2% vs. 30.9%, respectively, p < 0.001). All-cause mortality at 24 h did not differ amongst the three groups. The 60-day mortality rates were 40.2% for the iMV group, 26% for the OT group, and 29.3% for the NIV group (p = 0.005), even after excluding patients with cardiac arrest at presentation. In the multivariate analysis including SCAI stages, NIV was not associated with worse mortality compared to iMV (hazard ratio 1.97, 95% confidence interval 0.85-4.56), even in more severe SCAI stages such as D.
conclusionsCompared to previous studies, we observed a rising trend in the utilization of NIV among cardiogenic shock patients, irrespective of aetiology and SCAI stages. In this clinical scenario, NIV emerges as a safe option for appropriately selected patients.
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.