ReviewEuropean journal of heart failure2025
Current and novel biomarkers in cardiogenic shock.
Review in European journal of heart failure, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Hypoperfusion-Shock Continuum in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.Circulation. Heart failure · 2026Review
- Multi-biomarker approach for predicting cardiac magnetic resonance parameters at 30 days after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
- Novel treatment strategies in cardiogenic shock: an update on ongoing clinical trials.Heart failure reviews · 2026Review
- Arterial Versus Mixed Venous Lactate Levels in 1526 Cardiac Intensive Care Patients.Circulation. Heart failure · 2026Article
- Can algorithms come to the rescue of a failing heart? Machine learning, artificial intelligence, and decision-making in cardiogenic shock.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Article
- One Enzyme, Many Faces: The Expanding Role of DPP3 in Cardiovascular and Critical Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Inflammatory Indices in Patients with Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock, and Their Interconnections with SCAI Stages and Patients' Survival: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- AI-Based Predictive Models for Cardiogenic Shock in STEMI: Real-World Data for Early Risk Assessment and Prognostic Insights.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Dynamic Predictive Models of Cardiogenic Shock in STEMI: Focus on Interventional and Critical Care Phases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Using the Immune System for Effective Periodontal and Caries Management.BioMed research international · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock (CS) carries a 30-50% in-hospital mortality rate, with little improvement in outcomes in the last decade. Challenges in improving outcomes are closely linked to the frequent late presentation or diagnosis of CS where the 'point of no return' has often passed, leading to haemodynamic dysregulation, progressive myocardial depression, hypotension, and a downward spiral of hypoperfusion, organ dysfunction and decreasing myocardial function, driven by inflammation and metabolic derangements. Novel therapeutic interventions may have varying efficacy depending on the type and stage of shock in which they are applied. Biomarkers that aid prediction and early detection of CS, provide early signs of organ dysfunction and define prognosis could help optimize management. Temporal change in such biomarkers, particularly in response to pharmacological interventions and/or mechanical circulatory support, can guide management and predict outcome. Several novel biomarkers enhance the prediction of mortality in CS, compared to conventional parameters such as lactate, with some, such as adrenomedullin and circulating dipeptidyl peptidase 3, also able to predict the development of CS. Some biomarkers reflect systemic inflammation (e.g. interleukin-6, angiopoietin 2, fibroblast growth factor 23 and suppressor of tumorigenicity 2) and are not specific to CS, yet inform on the activation of important pathways involved in the downward shock spiral. Other biomarkers signal end-organ hypoperfusion and could guide targeted interventions, while some may serve as novel therapeutic targets. We critically review current and novel biomarkers that guide prediction, detection, and prognostication in CS. Future use of biomarkers may help improve management in these high-risk patients.
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.