ArticleCirculation reports2025
Priorities for Early Revascularization or Introduction of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Circulation reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- In-Hospital and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Categorized as SCAI Shock Stage B.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Aortic Stenosis and Cardiogenic Shock.Circulation reports · 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal timing for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) initiation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is unknown, so in this study we analyzed whether MCS implementation before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with better outcomes compared to after PCI. Methods and Results: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using a random-effects model to account for potential heterogeneity. Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were used for dichotomous outcomes. PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched up to April 30, 2023. Certainty of evidence was evaluated according to the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions-I tool. A total of 14 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. We found that venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) may have little to no positive effect on short-term survival, but the evidence was very uncertain. Impella use probably increases short-term survival (moderate certainty of evidence), whereas the timing of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) insertion improves outcomes (very low certainty of evidence). Pre- and post-PCI MCS implementation may result in little to no difference in bleeding complications or stroke incidence across all device types (low to very low certainty of evidence). Conclusions: Early Impella implementation before PCI may increase short-term survival, whereas the timing of ECMO or IABP implementation may have little to no effect on outcomes; however, the evidence is very uncertain.
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.