ReviewF1000Research2020
The science of safety: complications associated with the use of mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock and best practices to maximize safety.
Review in F1000Research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04682483 (Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Registry), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Registry
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiogenic Shock and the Role of Critical Care Cardiology: Evidence, Models of Care, and Future Directions.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Review
- Cardiogenic Shock Management in the Modern Era: A Narrative Review of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Case Report: Intra-aortic balloon pump in a patient with refractory cardiogenic shock complicating severe aortic stenosis-enhanced hemodynamic response with low aortic compliance.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock.Journal of intensive care · 2023Review
- Review
- Position Statement on Vascular Access Safety for Percutaneous Devices in AMI Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2022Review
- Single center first year experience and outcomes with Impella 5.5 left ventricular assist device.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2022Article
- Hemodynamic-based Assessment and Management of Cardiogenic Shock.US cardiology · 2022Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are widely used in cardiogenic shock (CS) despite a lack of high-quality clinical evidence to guide their use. Multiple devices exist across a spectrum from modest to complete support, and each is associated with unique risks. In this review, we summarize existing data on complications associated with the three most widely used acute MCS platforms: the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella systems, and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). We review evidence from available randomized trials and highlight challenges comparing complication rates from case series and comparative observational studies where a lack of granular data precludes appropriate matching of patients by CS severity. We further offer a series of best practices to help shock practitioners minimize the risk of MCS-associated complications and ensure the best possible outcomes for patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.