ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2025
Timing of mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients in Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Cardiac Surgery: Protected Cardiac Surgery Concept.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Initial intra-aortic balloon pump versus Impella support strategies and short-term outcomes in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a MIMIC-IV cohort study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- From innovation to implementation: expanding global access to mechanical circulatory support and heart transplantation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Admitted in Cardiac Intensive Care Unit with Cardiogenic Shock: A Single-Center Study.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock has a high mortality rate. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has been increasingly used; however, the optimal timing for MCS insertion remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate outcomes of pre-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs post-PCI MCS insertion in AMI patients with cardiogenic shock. Methods: A systematic search using 4 databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL, was conducted from inception to October 25, 2024. Studies comparing outcomes of MCS insertion pre-PCI vs post-PCI in this setting were included. Results: There were 36 studies with a total of 6218 participants were included in this meta-analysis, using a random-effects model. Most of the included studies were non-randomized and retrospective. Early MCS insertion (prior to PCI) was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality compared to late insertion (post-PCI), with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.46 (95%CI 0.36 to 0.57), Conclusions: Early MCS insertion prior to PCI is potentially associated with reduced in-hospital, 30-day, and 6-month mortality compared to post-PCI insertion in AMI patients with cardiogenic shock.
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.