Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41590836›Full record

ReviewJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2025

Cardiogenic Shock Management in the Modern Era: A Narrative Review of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.

Srijit Jana, Makayla Wijesinghe, Michael V DiCaro, KaChon Lei, Nazanin Houshmand, Chowdhury Ahsan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Srijit JanaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Las Vegas School of Medicine, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89102, USA.
Makayla WijesingheReno School of Medicine, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89102, USA.ORCID 0009-0008-8728-4785
Michael V DiCaroDepartment of Cardiology, Las Vegas School of Medicine, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89102, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3376-4608
KaChon LeiDepartment of Cardiology, Las Vegas School of Medicine, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89102, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3696-195X
Nazanin HoushmandDepartment of Cardiology, Las Vegas School of Medicine, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89102, USA.
Chowdhury AhsanDepartment of Cardiology, Las Vegas School of Medicine, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89102, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

cardiogenic shockmechanical circulatory supportshock

Identifiers

PMID41590836
PMCPMC12842289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.