Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40387531›Full record

GuidelineEuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology2025

SCAI/EAPCI/ACVC Expert Consensus Statement on Cardiogenic Shock in Women.

Suzanne J Baron, Josephine C Chou, Tayyab Shah, Amanda R Vest, J Dawn Abbott, Mirvat Alasnag, Cristina Aurigemma, Emanuele Barbato, Lavanya Bellumkonda, Anna E Bortnick and 10 more

Abstract readPractice GuidelineConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Guideline in EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Shockingly Unequal: Addressing Sex-Specific Needs in Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Suzanne J BaronMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Josephine C ChouSouth Denver Cardiology, Littleton, Colorado.
Tayyab ShahSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Amanda R VestCleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
J Dawn AbbottBrown University Health Cardiovascular Institute and Department of Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School, Providence, Rhode Island.
Mirvat AlasnagKing Fahad Armed Forces Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Cristina AurigemmaDepartment of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Science, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Emanuele BarbatoDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Lavanya BellumkondaSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Anna E BortnickMontefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York.
Alaide ChieffoVita Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Robert-Jan van GeunsRadboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Cindy L GrinesNorthside Hospital Cardiovascular Institute, Atlanta, Georgia.
Sigrun HalvorsenDepartment of Cardiology, Oslo University Hospital Ullevål, Oslo, Norway.
Christian HassagerDepartment of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Navin K KapurTufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Srihari S NaiduWestchester Medical Center, Valhalla, New York.
Vivian G NgColumbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
Jacqueline SawVancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Alexandra J LanskySection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death for women worldwide, with mortality rates due to cardiogenic shock (CS) remaining exceedingly high. Sex-based disparities in the timely delivery of optimal CS treatment contribute to poor outcomes; addressing these disparities is a major priority to improve women's cardiovascular health. This consensus statement provides a comprehensive summary of the current state of treatment of CS in women across the spectrum of cardiovascular disease states and identifies important gaps in evidence. As sex-based data are limited in contemporary literature, clinicians may use this document as a resource to guide practice. Further investigations are necessary to inform best practices for the diagnosis and treatment of women with CS.

Indexed as

Shock, CardiogenicWomen's HealthFemaleHumansSex Factors

Identifiers

PMID40387531
PMCPMC12337771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.