ReviewJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2025
Cardiogenic Shock Management in the Modern Era: A Narrative Review of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.
Review in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Cardiogenic shock and acute renal failure associated mortality trends in the United States: a retrospective analysis of death records from 1999 to 2023.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Machine learning for prediction of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation after emergency percutaneous coronary intervention during hospitalization in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a multi-center prospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a significant clinical challenge with persistently high mortality rates. Defined by impaired cardiac output resulting in end-organ hypoperfusion, CS commonly arises from acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) or acute exacerbations of heart failure (HF-CS). The severity of CS is classified by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) into stages A (at risk) through E (extremis), which informs treatment strategies, including pharmacotherapy and mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Recent advancements in percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices, including intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), Impella devices, TandemHeart, Protek-Duo, and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), have transformed management paradigms by offering targeted hemodynamic support. While DanGer-SHOCK, a pivotal randomized trial, demonstrated improved outcomes with early Impella use in anterior STEMI-associated CS, the trial's focus population and center expertise suggest that its findings should be interpreted in the context of broader AMI-CS and HF-CS presentations. Device selection is guided by shock severity, anatomical considerations, comorbidities, and institutional capabilities. This review synthesizes current evidence, evaluates the clinical utility and efficacy of existing and emerging percutaneous MCS technologies, and highlights ongoing clinical trials and future directions in optimizing CS management. Emphasis is placed on individualized patient selection, evidence-based deployment of MCS devices, and multidisciplinary team collaboration, which collectively represent a critical transition towards improving clinical outcomes in 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.