ArticleEuropean heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care2024
Epidemiology of cardiogenic shock using the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) consensus definitions.
Article in European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-analysis of the predictive value of critical care echocardiography for weaning outcomes in patients with VA-ECMO-assisted cardiogenic shock.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Early Corticosteroid use and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Mixed and Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- A Recovery-Focused Framework for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock.Circulation. Heart failure · 2026Review
- Hemodynamic Effects of Anesthetics, Sedatives, and Analgesics in the CICU: Clinical Decision Guidance.JACC. Advances · 2026Review
- Microaxial Flow Pump Support as a Bridge to Transaxillary TAVI-In-TAVI in Cardiogenic Shock.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Association of Mechanical Circulatory Support With In-Hospital Outcomes in Non-Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock: A Nationwide Inpatient Study.Clinical cardiology · 2026Article
- CalShock: beyond the shock team, building on California's cardiogenic shock system of care.Heart failure reviews · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic Shock: Clinical Management, Outcomes and Future Directions.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- National Heart Center - Saudi Health Council Acute Myocardial Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock Consensus Document.Saudi medical journal · 2026Article
- Advancing palliative care in cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: identifying evidence gaps and future research priorities.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- 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
- Cardiogenic shock: a review of contemporary approaches and ongoing challenges.Future cardiology · 2025Review
- Timing of inotropic support is associated with mortality in patients with acute decompensated heart failure-associated cardiogenic shock.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2025Article
- Flow of Data, Not Blood Flow, Is the Key to Unraveling ECMO Support in Mixed Shock.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- Epidemiology and Prognostic Significance of Acute Noncardiac Organ Dysfunction Across Cardiogenic Shock Subtypes.Journal of cardiac failure · 2025Observational
- Cardiogenic shock: diagnosis, phenotyping and management.Intensive care medicine · 2025Review
- Gaps and Knowledge in the Contemporary Management of Acute Right Ventricular Failure.Circulation. Heart failure · 2025Review
- Treatment of heart failure related cardiogenic shock: Time to fill the evidence gap.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Clinical diagnostic and prognostic value of homocysteine combined with hemoglobin [f (Hcy-Hb)] in cardio-renal syndrome caused by primary acute myocardial infarction.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Prognostic implication of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock.Journal of intensive care · 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
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) recently proposed pragmatic consensus definitions to standardize classification of cardiogenic shock (CS) in registries and clinical trials. We aimed to describe contemporary CS epidemiology using the SHARC definitions in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population. METHODS AND
resultsThe Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) is a multinational research network of advanced CICUs coordinated by the TIMI Study Group (Boston, MA). Cardiogenic shock was defined as a cardiac disorder resulting in SBP < 90 mmHg for ≥30 min [or the need for vasopressors, inotropes, or mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to maintain SBP ≥ 90 mmHg] with evidence of hypoperfusion. Primary aetiologic categories included acute myocardial infarction-related CS (AMI-CS), heart failure-related CS (HF-CS), and non-myocardial (secondary) CS. Post-cardiotomy CS was not included. Heart failure-related CS was further subcategorized as de novo vs. acute-on-chronic HF-CS. Patients with both cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic components of shock were classified separately as mixed CS. Of 8974 patients meeting shock criteria (2017-23), 65% had isolated CS and 17% had mixed shock. Among patients with CS (n = 5869), 27% had AMI-CS (65% STEMI), 59% HF-CS (72% acute-on-chronic, 28% de novo), and 14% secondary CS. Patients with AMI-CS and de novo HF-CS were most likely to have had concomitant cardiac arrest (P < 0.001). Patients with AMI-CS and mixed CS were most likely to present in more severe shock stages (SCAI D or E; P < 0.001). Temporary MCS use was highest in AMI-CS (59%). In-hospital mortality was highest in mixed CS (48%), followed by AMI-CS (41%), similar in de novo HF-CS (31%) and secondary CS (31%), and lowest in acute-on-chronic HF-CS (25%; P < 0.001).
conclusionSHARC consensus definitions for CS classification can be pragmatically applied in contemporary registries and reveal discrete subpopulations of CS with distinct phenotypes and outcomes that may be relevant to clinical practice and future research.
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.