ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Mechanical Support in Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: What Have We Learned from Trials?
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock (CS) is the most lethal complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), with a 30-day mortality of approximately 40-50% despite early revascularization. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices, including the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), microaxial flow pumps (MAFP) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), are used as adjunctive therapy in refractory shock, but evidence of a survival benefit is limited and often conflicting. The IABP-SHOCK II trial found no 30-day mortality reduction with IABP, supporting a Class III (no benefit) recommendation, whereas the DanGer Shock trial reported a 12.7% absolute mortality reduction at 180 days with the MAFP Impella CP in highly selected patients. In contrast, the ECLS-SHOCK and ECMO-CS trials showed no improvement in survival with early VA-ECMO and noted high complication rates. Real-world data reveal significant disparities between trial populations and clinical practice, highlighting limitations of current evidence, since many AMI-CS patients are older, in more advanced shock or have multiple comorbidities and would not meet typical randomized controlled trial (RCT) inclusion criteria. In clinical practice, in-hospital mortality with IABP or VA-ECMO often exceeds 50-60%. Given the heterogeneity of AMI-CS, rapid identification of appropriate tMCS candidates and personalized therapy are essential. Management guided by individual patient profile, hemodynamic stage and neurological status, supported by multidisciplinary shock teams, may improve timely triage, device selection and outcomes. This review emphasizes the need for individualized, protocol-driven care within structured shock systems to optimize tMCS use in AMI-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.