ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2026
Trends in mechanical circulatory support utilization for spontaneous coronary artery dissection-related cardiogenic shock.
Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is increasingly recognized as an important cause of acute coronary syndromes, and cardiogenic shock (SCAD-CS) remains a rare but devastating complication. Given the lack of guidelines for managing SCAD-CS, the purpose of this study was to examine how mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has been utilized in this setting and how practices evolved over time. Methods: Using the National Inpatient Sample, we included female patients ≥18 years diagnosed with SCAD-CS from 2016 to 2020. Patients were classified by MCS use and device type: intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Demographics, comorbidities, clinical characteristics, and mortality were analyzed using univariate tests and multivariable logistic regression. Results: Among 503 patients with SCAD-CS, 322 (64%) received MCS. Of those, 200 had IABP, 125 had Impella, and 38 had ECMO; Escalation to ECMO was required in 12 patients initially supported with Impella and 6 patients supported with IABP. Median day of onset from admission was 0 for IABP, 1 for Impella, and 2 for ECMO. Overall, MCS utilization trends remained stable throughout the study period, with no statistically significant changes in the specific proportions of IABP ( Conclusions: While identified cases of SCAD-CS rose significantly from 2016 to 2020, overall MCS utilization remained statistically stable. Future multicenter efforts are needed to determine which specific management strategy and MCS modality and is most adequate for this unique patient population.
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.