ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Unraveling cardiogenic shock: insights from a single-center registry on management strategies and patient outcomes.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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.
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
backgroundCardiogenic shock (CS) is the leading cause of death in patients hospitalized with Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) despite aggressive treatment and recent advances in management. The incidence of CS and predictors of survival in Pakistani population are not well studied. The primary objective of our study was to determine the incidence of CS in ACS patients and assess the management patterns and predictors of in-hospital and follow-up mortality at Tabba Heart Institute.
methodsWe collected retrospective data on ACS patients from Institutional Chest Pain MI registry from July 2013 to June 2020, including all patients who developed CS at the time of arrival in Emergency Department or during their hospital stay. Patients with shock in the absence of significant coronary artery disease and patients developing CS complicated by mechanical cardiac procedures were excluded. Multivariable logistic stepwise regression model was applied to identify significant predictors of survival among revascularized and conservatively treated groups, using SPSS version 22.0. Follow-up was sought for patients discharged alive, for mortality and adverse cardiac events.
resultsOut of a total of 30,215 ACS patients, 456 (1.51%) were diagnosed with CS in 2013, with a decreasing incidence to 1.1% seen till 2016 and later rising again to more than 1.8% in 2020. Mean age at presentation was 60.9 ± 11.1 years, 76.1% being male. 383 (84%) patients were revascularized [29 CABG only, 342 PCI only, and 12 patients had PCI followed by CABG]. Significantly lower morality was observed when comparing revascularized group as compared to conservative treatment group (44.4% vs. 82.2%, p-value < 0.001), whereas mortality within the revascularized group was 14.6%. The major predictors of in-hospital mortality in the overall cohort included no revascularization, diabetes history, cardiac arrest before catheterization, STEMI, > 2 vasopressors used, persistent shock status, multi-vessel disease, and use of IABP. The median follow-up time of 208 out of 226 (92%) survived patients was 17 months (IQR 7–33 months). There were 39 (18.8%) events, including MI, death, and need for revascularization reported, while 23 (11.0%) were deceased.
conclusionCardiogenic shock constitutes high mortality despite early invasive approaches of revascularization, underscoring the need for risk stratification using the key predictors to improve patient outcomes through targeted interventions and resource optimization.
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.