ArticleAnnals of intensive care2025
Impact of therapeutic hypothermia on cardiogenic shock outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Experts' recommendations for the management of adult patients with cardiogenic shock.Annals of intensive care · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPre-clinical studies have suggested the benefits of therapeutic hypothermia in cardiogenic shock (CS). However, current evidence on its efficacy and safety in CS remains limited.
methodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess efficacy/safety of hypothermia in CS. PUBMED/EMBASE/Cochrane/Scopus/Web of Science were searched from inception to December 31, 2024, for studies evaluating outcomes of hypothermia in CS. Efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes included pneumonia, sepsis, and bleeding.
resultsSeven studies including 695 patients were analyzed. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-related CS was the primary etiology in 363 patients (52.2%). Hypothermia was not associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality at 30 days (OR 0.83 [0.54-1.26] or at the longest available follow-up (IRR 0.85 [0.72-1.01]). No significant differences were observed for pneumonia (OR 1.44 [0.42-4.87]), sepsis (OR 0.61 [0.01-46.80]), or bleeding (OR 1.36 [0.65-2.89]). Meta-regression suggested that hypothermia may be less beneficial and riskier in patients with AMI-CS, whereas greater benefit was observed in those with mechanical circulatory support. Trial sequential analysis indicated that the cumulative Z-curve for hypothermia did not cross the boundary for benefit, nor the futility boundary, suggesting that current evidence remains inconclusive and underpowered.
conclusionIn this meta-analysis, therapeutic hypothermia appeared safe but failed to show a significant reduction in all-cause mortality in patients with CS, albeit with very low certainty of evidence. Larger RCTs are warranted to clarify its clinical utility.
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.