ReviewJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock: Current Studies and Future Directions.
Review in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of the STS Risk Score in Predicting Outcomes in Impella-Supported High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the PROTECT III Study.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Initial intra-aortic balloon pump versus Impella support strategies and short-term outcomes in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a MIMIC-IV cohort study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Combined mechanical ventilatory and mechanical circulatory support aids pulmonary vascular state in cardiogenic shock.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2025Article
- Prognostic implication of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock.Journal of intensive care · 2025Article
- Impact of symptom duration and mechanical circulatory support on prognosis in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2024Article
- The Management of Cardiogenic Shock From Diagnosis to Devices: A Narrative Review.CHEST critical care · 2024Article
- Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock: Outcomes of the RECOVER III Postapproval Study by Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Shock Stage.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Observational
- Contemporary approach to cardiogenic shock care: a state-of-the-art review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Glimpse into the future.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock (CS) caused by acute myocardial infarction (AMI) accounts for most deaths in the population with AMI and continues to be associated with high short-term mortality. Several temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have been developed to treat CS and studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with AMI-CS. Unfortunately, none of these RCTs has demonstrated an improvement in survival with temporary MCS in AMI-CS. Potential reasons for these negative results in RCTs are numerous and reflect the challenges of enrolling critically ill patients with CS. Researchers have used observational study designs to provide insights about outcomes associated with the use of temporary MCS in AMI-CS. These observational studies have yielded conflicting results, in some cases contrary to the results of RCTs. Several limitations pertinent to both RCTs and observational analyses, mostly relating to selection bias and failure to consider unmeasured confounding variables and population heterogeneity, preclude drawing strong inferences regarding the effects of temporary MCS on survival in populations with AMI-CS. Understanding these limitations is essential to correctly interpreting the literature regarding temporary MCS to treat AMI-CS and is necessary to inform the design of future studies that will potentially provide stronger evidence. Optimally matching temporary MCS devices to the needs of individual patients with AMI-CS will presumably be more successful than indiscriminate application in unselected patients. In this review, we discuss the existing literature on temporary MCS to treat AMI-CS and describe the specific challenges that must be overcome to develop an improved evidence base for guiding clinical practice.
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.