ReviewCureus2024
Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of ultrasound guided venous cannulation positioning during venous-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Mechanical circulatory support as a cornerstone in advanced heart failure and transplantation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a critical condition with high mortality rates, often arising from acute myocardial infarction and advanced heart failure. Despite advancements in medical therapy, traditional interventions frequently fall short of reversing the profound hemodynamic instability seen in CS. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have emerged as crucial therapeutic options, offering temporary stabilization and bridging to recovery, heart transplantation, or long-term ventricular assist device implantation. This narrative review explores the current landscape of MCS in CS, highlighting the various types of support devices, including intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP), veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), and percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) such as Impella and TandemHeart. We examine their mechanisms of action, clinical indications, and outcomes alongside the challenges and complications associated with their use. Additionally, we discuss the evolving guidelines and the role of MCS in contemporary CS management, emphasizing the need for timely intervention and a multidisciplinary approach. The review underscores the importance of individualized patient selection and device choice to optimize outcomes in this critically ill population.
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.