ReviewCirculation reports2026
Defining a Cardiogenic Shock Center and Its Relationship to Outcomes Among Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - A Scoping Review.
Review in Circulation reports, 2026. 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.
- From Thrombolysis to Transplant: Navigating the Storm of Delayed STEMI and Cardiogenic Shock.Clinical case 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
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite advances in the treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS), it remains associated with high mortality rates. To improve patient outcomes, management in a dedicated care center has been proposed. However, the definition of a dedicated CS center has not been systematically examined, and no consensus exists across major societies or guidelines. The aim of this scoping review was to identify key elements defining CS centers linked to better patient outcomes and guide future research. This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. The PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science electronic databases were systematically searched to identify studies published from inception to July 19, 2023. Twenty observational studies examining hospital characteristics and patient outcomes with CS were included. Higher volumes of CS patients, more board-certified cardiologists, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) availability 24/7, and the presence of cardiovascular intensive care units, left ventricular assist device (LVAD) centers, and hub-and-spoke systems were associated with better outcomes. Inconsistent associations were observed for the number of PCIs, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and percutaneous microaxial ventricular assist device procedures, and LVAD case volume and the availability of cardiac surgical support were not associated with improved outcomes. This scoping review identified candidate elements of CS centers linked to better outcomes, providing a foundation for developing an optimal CS care 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.