ReviewJACC. Advances2026
Evolving Evidence-Driven Strategies in Cardiogenic Shock Management.
Review 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although existing guidelines and expert consensus documents provide a general framework for management of cardiogenic shock (CS), a substantial body of evidence has yet emerged which has not been fully incorporated into current recommendations. This State-of-the Art review synthesizes both established and recent literature to provide an updated perspective on contemporary CS management. We review randomized controlled trials and key observational studies evaluating invasive hemodynamic monitoring, pharmacologic therapies, temporary mechanical circulatory support, and structural and valvular interventions. We critically appraise trial design, patient heterogeneity, and methodological limitations that influence interpretation and clinical applicability. Finally, we highlight persistent gaps and ongoing trials that aim to refine risk stratification and treatment strategies. This review provides a comprehensive, up-to-date synthesis of the CS literature and outlines key directions for future research and clinical practice.
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.