ReviewJACC. Advances2025
Macrovascular Hemodynamics and Peripheral Perfusion in Cardiogenic Shock: Exploring Current Targets and Future Directions.
Review in JACC. Advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diffuse Correlation Spectroscopy for Noninvasive Monitoring of Peripheral Perfusion During Cardiogenic Shock and VA-ECMO Support: An Experimental Study.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2026Article
- The physiologic power of fluid circulation and implications for fluid therapy.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- Sex differences in endothelial cell biology: cellular phenotypes and molecular regulators.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- A Proposed Algorithm for the Management of Patients with Cardiogenic Shock Based on Contemporary Knowledge and Gaps in Evidence.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite significant advances in care over the past few decades, mortality among patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) remains up to 50%. Given the persistently high mortality, there is an urgent need for both better prognostic tools and treatment strategies. The pathophysiology of CS has major contributions from both macrovascular and microvascular dysfunction, but therapies are titrated toward the more readily measurable metrics (ie, mean arterial pressure, cardiac index, etc) under the assumption that both macrovascular and microvascular dynamics will respond to intervention in tandem. However, emerging evidence suggests that macrovascular and microvascular circulatory functions are not always aligned, particularly in those with critical illness. This review summarizes the significance of different macrovascular and microvascular metrics in CS, drawing from a robust field of evidence to demonstrate the promising role that microvascular tissue perfusion markers play in management of patients with CS and summarize the current understanding of this burgeoning field.
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.