ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2024
Trends and outcomes of different mechanical circulatory support modalities for acute myocardial infarction associated cardiogenic shock in patients undergoing early revascularization.
Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Resource utilization associated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation vs. microaxial flow pump for infarct-related cardiogenic shock.European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care · 2025Pooled it
- Trends in mechanical circulatory support utilization for spontaneous coronary artery dissection-related cardiogenic shock.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Diurnal Variation in Mechanical Circulatory Support Initiation and Associated Outcomes.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Prognostic Significance of Gait Recovery after Mechanical Circulatory Support Weaning in Acute Myocardial Infarction: A 14-Day Landmark Analysis.Progress in rehabilitation medicine · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic shock 2025: Understanding real world outcomes and contemporary practice to help guide improvements in care.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2025Article
- Trends and outcomes of different mechanical circulatory support modalities for refractory cardiogenic shock in Takotsubo cardiomyopathy.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 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
Background: The use of Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS) devices in cardiogenic shock (CS) is growing. However, the recent trends in using different MCS modalities and their outcomes in acute myocardial infarction associated CS (AMI-CS) are unknown. Methods: The national readmission database (2016-2020) was used to identify AMI-CS requiring MCS. Cohorts were stratified as ECMO compared to Impella. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to remove confounding factors. Pearson's x2 test was applied to matched cohorts to compare outcomes. We used multivariate regression and reported predictive margins for adjusted trend analysis. Results: Among 20,950 AMI-CS hospitalizations requiring MCS, 19,628 (93.7 %) received Impella vs 1322 (6.3 %) were placed only on ECMO. ECMO group was younger (median age: 61 vs. 68 years, Conclusion: Despite advances in MCS modalities, the overall mortality rate for AMI-CS remains unchanged. ECMO use without LV unloading showed higher mortality and adverse events compared to Impella. Prospective studies are needed to verify these findings.
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.