ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Can a mechanical circulatory support comprehensive approach to cardiogenic shock at referral centers reduce 30-day mortality?
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Molecules to Multidisciplinary Teams: A Contemporary View of Heart Failure Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiogenic Shock: A Narrative Review in Light of Recent Evidence.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although mortality risk prediction in cardiogenic shock (CS) is possible, assessing the impact of the multitude of therapeutic efforts on outcomes is not straightforward. We assessed whether a temporary mechanical circulatory support comprehensive approach to the treatment of CS may reduce 30-day mortality as compared to expected mortality predicted by the recently proposed Cardiogenic Shock Score (CSS). Consecutive CS patients supported by pVAD Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) at two national referral centers were included. 170 patients were included: age was 65 ± 13 years, and 75.9% were male and acute myocardial infarction was the prevalent cause of shock (71.1%). Expected mortality according to CSS was higher than observed (51.8% vs. 41.5%,
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.