ReviewIntensive care medicine2024
Management of cardiogenic shock: state-of-the-art.
Review in Intensive care medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 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
36 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic impact of body mass index in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic Shock: an ECLS-SHOCK subanalysis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Trial
- Mortality risk stratification in contemporary myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock: development of AMICS-ADMIT prediction model and benchmarking of established scores.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
- Kidney Failure in Cardiogenic Shock.Circulation. Heart failure · 2026Review
- Left ventricular unloading during VA-ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock: a target trial emulation multicenter analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Hidden effects of dobutamine on cardiac output.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Article
- Sex-based differences in clinical outcomes among cardiogenic shock patients treated with mechanical circulatory support.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Article
- Long-Term Follow-Up After Dual Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Implantation Under VA-ECMO Support.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- The Right Ventricle in Cardiac Critical Care: Pathophysiology, Evaluation and Management.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Ventricular arrhythmia ablation timing and outcomes in electrical STORM requiring V-A ECMO support: the STORM-ECMO study.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic shock and acute renal failure associated mortality trends in the United States: a retrospective analysis of death records from 1999 to 2023.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of combined veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and Impella support (ECPELLA) in infarct-related cardiogenic shock.European heart journal open · 2026Article
- Extracorporeal Cytokine Adsorption in Acute Cardiovascular Care: Pathophysiological Insights and Clinical Perspectives.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Experts' recommendations for the management of adult patients with cardiogenic shock.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- ECMO in hinterland-feasibility and challenges (case-based narrative review).Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- A linear association between serum uric acid and 28-day and 90-day mortality after veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic shock: from standardization to precision-a new era in critical care cardiology?Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Optimization of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Weaning: Hemodynamic Targets, Predictive Indicators, and Future Algorithm.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Pharmaceutical Drug Development: Transforming Formulation and Innovation.Current drug discovery technologies · 2026Review
- A Proposed Algorithm for the Management of Patients with Cardiogenic Shock Based on Contemporary Knowledge and Gaps in Evidence.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- CytoSorbBiomedicines · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The management of cardiogenic shock is an ongoing challenge. Despite all efforts and tremendous use of resources, mortality remains high. Whilst reversing the underlying cause, restoring/maintaining organ perfusion and function are cornerstones of management. The presence of comorbidities and preexisting organ dysfunction increases management complexity, aiming to integrate the needs of vital organs in each individual patient. This review provides a comprehensive overview of contemporary literature regarding the definition and classification of cardiogenic shock, its pathophysiology, diagnosis, laboratory evaluation, and monitoring. Further, we distill the latest evidence in pharmacologic therapy and the use of mechanical circulatory support including recently published randomized-controlled trials as well as future directions of research, integrating this within an international group of authors to provide a global perspective. Finally, we explore the need for individualization, especially in the face of neutral randomized trials which may be related to a dilution of a potential benefit of an intervention (i.e., average effect) in this heterogeneous clinical syndrome, including the use of novel biomarkers, artificial intelligence, and machine learning approaches to identify specific endotypes of cardiogenic shock (i.e., subclasses with distinct underlying biological/molecular mechanisms) to support a more personalized medicine beyond the syndromic approach of cardiogenic shock.
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.