ReviewJournal of intensive care2023
Prevention and management of critical care complications in cardiogenic shock: a narrative review.
Review in Journal of intensive care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hemodynamic Effects of Anesthetics, Sedatives, and Analgesics in the CICU: Clinical Decision Guidance.JACC. Advances · 2026Review
- Defining a Cardiogenic Shock Center and Its Relationship to Outcomes Among Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - A Scoping Review.Circulation reports · 2026Review
- Clinical characteristics of patients with cardiogenic shock after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) compared to patients with cardiogenic shock without OHCA.Cardiology journal · 2026Article
- Role of advanced heart failure and transplant teams in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation management.World journal of transplantation · 2025Article
- Enteral Nutrition in Critical Care: Pathogenesis, Complications, and the Therapeutic Promise of Mediterranean-Style Diets.Current gastroenterology reports · 2025Review
- Comparison of a directWorld journal of transplantation · 2025Article
- Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock.Journal of intensive care · 2023Review
- Blood Stream Infections in COVID-19 Patients From a Tertiary Care Center in Lebanon: Causative Pathogens and Rates of Multi-Drug Resistant Organisms.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2023Article
- Cardiac intensive care unit: where we are in 2023.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Myocardial stretch-induced compliance is abrogated under ischemic conditions and restored by cGMP/PKG-related pathways.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
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
backgroundCardiogenic shock (CS) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in cardiac intensive care units (CICUs), even in the contemporary era. MAIN TEXT: Although mechanical circulatory supports have recently become widely available and used in transforming the management of CS, their routine use to improve outcomes has not been established. Transportation to a high-volume center, early reperfusion, tailored mechanical circulatory supports, regionalized systems of care with multidisciplinary CS teams, a dedicated CICU, and a systemic approach, including preventing noncardiogenic complications, are the key components of CS treatment strategies.
conclusionsThis narrative review aimed to discuss the challenges of preventing patients from developing CS-related complications and provide a comprehensive practical approach for its management.
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.