Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39228471›Full record

ArticleReviews in cardiovascular medicine2024

Phenotyping Refractory Cardiogenic Shock Patients Receiving Venous-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Using Machine Learning Algorithms.

Shuo Wang, Liangshan Wang, Zhongtao Du, Feng Yang, Xing Hao, Xiaomeng Wang, Chengcheng Shao, Jin Li, Hong Wang, Chenglong Li and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Interleukin-6 in Cardiogenic Shock.Current cardiology reports · 2025
    Review
  3. Profiling of Cardiogenic Shock: Incorporating Machine Learning Into Bedside Management.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Shuo WangCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital Capital Medical University, 100029 Beijing, China.
Liangshan WangCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital Capital Medical University, 100029 Beijing, China.
Zhongtao DuCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital Capital Medical University, 100029 Beijing, China.
Feng YangCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital Capital Medical University, 100029 Beijing, China.
Xing HaoCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital Capital Medical University, 100029 Beijing, China.
Xiaomeng WangCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital Capital Medical University, 100029 Beijing, China.
Chengcheng ShaoCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital Capital Medical University, 100029 Beijing, China.
Jin LiCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital Capital Medical University, 100029 Beijing, China.
Hong WangCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital Capital Medical University, 100029 Beijing, China.
Chenglong LiCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital Capital Medical University, 100029 Beijing, China.
Xiaotong HouCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital Capital Medical University, 100029 Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: This study used machine learning to categorize cardiogenic shock (CS) patients treated with venous-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) into distinct phenotypes. Subsequently, it aimed to clarify the wide mortality variance observed in refractory CS, attributing it to the condition's inherent heterogeneity. Methods: This study enrolled a cohort of CS patients who received VA-ECMO support. By employing rigorous machine learning (ML) techniques, we generated and validated clusters based on determinants identified through algorithmic analysis. These clusters, characterized by distinct clinical outcomes, facilitated the examination of clinical and laboratory profiles to enhance the understanding of patient responses to VA-ECMO treatment. Results: In a study of 210 CS patients undergoing VA-ECMO treatment, 70.5% were male with a median age of 62, ranging from 53 to 67 years. Survival rates were 67.6% during VA-ECMO and 49.5% post-discharge. Patients were classified into three phenotypes based on the clinical and laboratory findings: "platelet preserved (I)", those with stable platelet counts, "hyperinflammatory (II)", those indicating significant inflammation, and "hepatic-renal (III)", those showing compromised liver and kidney functions. Mortality rates (25.0%, 52.8%, and 55.9% for phenotypes I, Ⅱ, and Ⅲ, respectively ( Conclusions: This study identified three distinct phenotypes among refractory CS patients treated using VA-ECMO, each with unique clinical characteristics and mortality risks. Thus, highlighting the importance of early detection and targeted intervention, these findings suggest that proactive management could improve outcomes for those showing critical signs.

Indexed as

cardiogenic shockmachine learningphenotypevenous–arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Identifiers

PMID39228471
PMCPMC11367001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.