ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiogenic Shock: A Narrative Review in Light of Recent Evidence.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex, life-threatening syndrome characterized by inadequate tissue perfusion due to impaired cardiac function. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and acute decompensated heart failure are the leading causes, with mortality remaining high despite advances in revascularization and supportive care. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) classification allows risk stratification and guides clinical decision making by capturing the spectrum of shock severity. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) devices, such as the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and Impella, aim to stabilize hemodynamics by augmenting cardiac output and unloading the left ventricle. However, randomized trials and meta-analyses have not demonstrated a consistent survival advantage of Impella over IABP, while reporting higher rates of bleeding and vascular complications. Landmark trials, including ECLS-SHOCK and DanGer, have provided conflicting results, likely reflecting differences in baseline severity and timing of device implantation. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (VA-ECMO) offers full cardiopulmonary support but increases left ventricular afterload, potentially worsening myocardial injury. Combined strategies such as ECPELLA (Impella + VA-ECMO) or ECMO + IABP may mitigate left ventricle (LV) overload and improve bridging to recovery or advanced therapies, although evidence remains largely observational and complication rates are considerable. In right-sided or biventricular failure, tailored options (e.g., Impella RP, Bi-Pella) guided by invasive hemodynamics may be required. Current evidence suggests that pMCS benefits are limited to carefully selected subgroups, underscoring the importance of early diagnosis, prompt referral, and individualized intervention. Robust randomized data are still needed to define the optimal role of pMCS in AMI-related CS.
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.