Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40768067›Full record

ReviewIntensive care medicine2025

Cardiogenic shock: diagnosis, phenotyping and management.

Jacob Eifer Møller, Christian Hassager, Alastair Proudfoot, Daniel De Backer, David A Morrow, Hanne Berg Ravn, Konstantin A Krychtiuk, Uwe Zeymer, Holger Thiele

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Intensive care medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors.

Jacob Eifer MøllerDepartment of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. jacob.moeller1@rsyd.dk.ORCID 0000-0003-2873-5845
Christian HassagerDepartment of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Alastair ProudfootBarts Heart Centre, Barts Health NHS Trust, London and William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Daniel De BackerDepartment of Intensive Care, CHIREC Hospitals, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
David A MorrowDepartment of Medicine, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA.
Hanne Berg RavnDepartment of Anaesthesia, Odense University Hospital, Clinical Institute, Southern Denmark University, Odense, Denmark.
Konstantin A KrychtiukDepartment of Internal Medicine II, Division of Cardiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Uwe ZeymerInstitut für Herzinfarktforschung, Faculty of Medicine, University Heart Center Freiburg, Bad Krozingen, University of Freiburg, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Holger ThieleDepartment of Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig at Leipzig University, Leipzig Heart Science, Leipzig, Germany. holger.thiele@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a state of critical end-organ hypoperfusion caused by primary cardiac failure, in which the heart cannot generate sufficient output despite adequate preload and is associated with very high mortality rates. The emergence of precision medicine may enable tailored interventions based on individual patient profiles, including genetic, biomarker, imaging, and clinical data. Advanced hemodynamic monitoring, mechanical circulatory support devices with smaller profiles and higher flow, and targeted pharmacologic therapies have expanded the therapeutic possibilities in CS. However, integrating these novel approaches into clinical practice requires careful alignment with evidence-based medicine. Balancing innovation with robust clinical evidence is crucial. Many technologies enter the clinical sphere before comprehensive trials confirm their benefit, creating potential risks in vulnerable CS patients. Precision medicine must therefore be grounded on rigorous data from randomized-controlled trials, registries, and meta-analyses to ensure safety and efficacy. Collaborative efforts, including large-scale data sharing and international research networks, are essential to bridge the gap between innovation and evidence. The goal is to move beyond a one-size-fits-all model toward a more nuanced, patient-centered approach while maintaining scientific rigor.

Indexed as

Shock, CardiogenicHemodynamic MonitoringHumansPhenotypePrecision MedicineCardiogenic shockMechanical circulatory supportShock phenotyping

Identifiers

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.