ArticleJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2025
SCAI/EAPCI/ACVC Expert Consensus Statement on Cardiogenic Shock in Women: This statement was endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA).
Article in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 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.
- Cardiogenic shock in pregnancy: Prolonged axillary Impella 5.5 support during pregnancy and postpartum as bridge to heart transplantation.JHLT open · 2026Article
- Sex Disparities in Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Non-ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- The Blind Spot in Cardiogenic Shock: Patients Beyond the Current Paradigm.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection: Advances in Understanding and Management in Women.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2026Review
- Cardiogenic shock and acute renal failure associated mortality trends in the United States: a retrospective analysis of death records from 1999 to 2023.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.