Observational studyJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Impact of Baseline Cardiogenic Shock Severity on Outcomes in Patients Treated With Impella Device.
Observational study in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRisk stratification of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) is of considerable importance. We aimed to test the utility of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention shock staging system recently refined by the CS Working Group in an Asian population and to investigate its association with in-hospital adverse events.
methodsFrom the Japanese nationwide registry of Impella, the patients with CS who successfully received Impella support between February 2020 and December 2023 were included and assigned to any stage according to the CS Working Group-refined Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention staging system. We set the primary end point as in-hospital death and explored it within each stage, with stage B as a reference.
resultsIn total, 4643 patients were analyzed (median age, 69 years; women, 23.3%; CS due to acute myocardial infarction, 61.7%), and 122, 588, 1905, and 2058 patients were in stages B, C, D, and E, respectively. After adjustment with potential confounders, stage C had no significant difference in in-hospital death (odds ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.69-1.80];
conclusionsThe CS Working Group-refined Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention staging system at baseline has a satisfactory association with in-hospital death in the more progressive stage; however, the system seems to have a lower power in the earlier phase of CS. Further investigation is warranted to establish a more accurate staging system.
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.