Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38993934›Full record

ArticleCHEST critical care2024

The Management of Cardiogenic Shock From Diagnosis to Devices: A Narrative Review.

Fatimah A Alkhunaizi, Nikolhaus Smith, Samuel B Brusca, David Furfaro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CHEST critical care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. What is new in cardiac anesthesia in 2024?Journal of anesthesia and translational medicine · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Myocardial Recovery in Cardiogenic Shock.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Fatimah A AlkhunaiziDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY.
Nikolhaus SmithDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC.
Samuel B BruscaDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
David FurfaroDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA.

Funding

POSTDOCTORAL TRAINING IN CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASET32HL007854 · NHLBI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Marwah Abdalla, Michael Argenziano · 1996 to 2026
$14.7M
NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007854
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a heterogenous syndrome broadly characterized by inadequate cardiac output leading to tissue hypoperfusion and multisystem organ dysfunction that carries an ongoing high mortality burden. The management of CS has advanced rapidly, especially with the incorporation of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices. A thorough understanding of how to approach a patient with CS and to select appropriate monitoring and treatment paradigms is essential in modern ICUs. Timely characterization of CS severity and hemodynamics is necessary to optimize outcomes, and this may be performed best by multidisciplinary shock-focused teams. In this article, we provide a review of CS aimed to inform both the cardiology-trained and non-cardiology-trained intensivist provider. We briefly describe the causes, pathophysiologic features, diagnosis, and severity staging of CS, focusing on gathering key information that is necessary for making management decisions. We go on to provide a more detailed review of CS management principles and practical applications, with a focus on tMCS. Medical management focuses on appropriate medication therapy to optimize perfusion-by enhancing contractility and minimizing afterload-and to facilitate decongestion. For more severe CS, or for patients with decompensating hemodynamic status despite medical therapy, initiation of the appropriate tMCS increasingly is common. We discuss the most common devices currently used for patients with CS-phenotyping patients as having left ventricular failure, right ventricular failure, or biventricular failure-and highlight key available data and particular points of consideration that inform tMCS device selection. Finally, we highlight core components of sedation and respiratory failure management for patients with CS.

Indexed as

cardiogenic shockcardiogenic shock severity classificationmechanical circulatory support

Identifiers

PMID38993934
PMCPMC11238736

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.