Observational studyClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2025
Ventilation strategies in cardiogenic shock: insights from the FRENSHOCK observational registry.
Observational study in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02703038 (French Observatory on the Management of Cardiogenic Shock in 2016), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
French Observatory on the Management of Cardiogenic Shock in 2016
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Invasive ventilation and association with outcomes in heart failure-related cardiogenic shock.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Efficacy of Non-invasive Ventilation Compared with Invasive Mechanical Ventilation in Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Noninvasive Ventilation in Cardiogenic Shock: Reconsidering Contraindications.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Experts' recommendations for the management of adult patients with cardiogenic shock.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Respiratory Support and Mortality Risk Across the Spectrum of Cardiogenic Shock Severity.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 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
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite scarce data, invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) is widely suggested as first-line ventilatory support in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients. We assessed the real-life use of different ventilation strategies in CS and their influence on short and mid-term prognosis.
methodsFRENSHOCK was a prospective registry including 772 CS patients from 49 centers in France. Patients were categorized into three groups according to the ventilatory supports during hospitalization: no mechanical ventilation group (NV), non-invasive ventilation alone group (NIV), and invasive mechanical ventilation group (MV). We compared clinical characteristics, management, and occurrence of death and major adverse event (MAE) (death, heart transplantation or ventricular assist device) at 30 days and 1 year between the three groups.
resultsSeven hundred sixty-eight patients were included in this analysis. Mean age was 66 years and 71% were men. Among them, 359 did not receive any ventilatory support (46.7%), 118 only NIV (15.4%), and 291 MV (37.9%). MV patients presented more severe CS with more skin mottling, higher lactate levels, and higher use of vasoactive drugs and mechanical circulatory support. MV was associated with higher mortality and MAE at 30 days (HR 1.41 [1.05-1.90] and 1.52 [1.16-1.99] vs NV). No difference in mortality (HR 0.79 [0.49-1.26]) or MAE (HR 0.83 [0.54-1.27]) was found between NIV patients and NV patients. Similar results were found at 1-year follow-up.
conclusionsOur study suggests that using NIV is safe in selected patients with less profound CS and no other MV indication. NCT02703038.
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.