ArticleJACC. Advances2026
Generalizability of Landmark Temporary MCS Device Trials: Insights From the CSWG Registry.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2026. 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLandmark randomized controlled trials like DanGer Shock, IABP-SHOCK II, and ECLS-SHOCK guide infarct-related cardiogenic shock (CS) management with temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS), but strict enrollment criteria may limit real-world applicability.
objectivesThe objective of the study was to evaluate the eligibility overlap of patients from these three key CS trials with the contemporary CS Working Group registry.
methodsIn this retrospective analysis, CS patients enrolled between 2020 and 2024 in the CS Working Group registry were assessed. Using trial-specific enrollment criteria (DanGer Shock, IABP-SHOCK II, and ECLS-SHOCK), subsets of patients meeting these criteria were identified. We compared baseline characteristics and usage patterns of tMCS devices among trial-eligible and trial-ineligible patients.
resultsOnly a small proportion of registry patients met all the key enrollment criteria: 19.3% (DanGer Shock), 28.4% (IABP-SHOCK II), and 23.6% (ECLS-SHOCK). Hypotension and elevated lactate thresholds were the most restrictive criteria across trials. Trial-eligible patients had more severe CS and end-organ damage than ineligible patients. Actual device use in real-world practice differed markedly from trial assignments; notably, only 20% of DanGer-like patients received Impella CP as their first device.
conclusionsPatients meeting the landmark CS trial criteria represent a small, high-risk subset of the real-world CS population, highlighting a substantial evidence gap for the majority of CS patients receiving tMCS in clinical practice. Enhancing registry enrollment of specific CS subsets and adopting innovative analytic strategies could bridge gaps between randomized controlled trials findings and real-world applicability.
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.