ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2024
The Price We Pay for Progression in Shock Care: Economic Burden, Accessibility, and Adoption of Shock-Teams and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Palliative and End-of-Life Care Utilization in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Population-Based Study.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Association of Mechanical Circulatory Support With In-Hospital Outcomes in Non-Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock: A Nationwide Inpatient Study.Clinical cardiology · 2026Article
- Impact of Social Determinants of Health on Utilization of Mechanical Circulatory Support Device in STEMI With Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic Shock Detection Using Electronic Medical Records: A Review and Blueprint for Clinical Implementation and Future Research.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Review
- Special topics: heart failure-related cardiogenic shock, valvular heart disease and end-stage renal disease. Part 4 of the International Expert Opinion Series on Acute Heart Failure Management.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
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
purpose of reviewCardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with high in-hospital and long-term mortality and morbidity that results in significant socio-economic impact. Due to the high costs associated with CS care, it is important to define the short- and long-term burden of this disease state on resources and review strategies to mitigate these. RECENT
findingsIn recent times, the focus on CS continues to be on improving short-term outcomes, but there has been increasing emphasis on the long-term morbidity. In this review we discuss the long-term outcomes of CS and the role of hospital-level and system-level disparities in perpetuating this. We discuss mitigation strategies including developing evidence-based protocols and systems of care, improvement in risk stratification and evaluation of futility of care, all of which address the economic burden of CS. CS continues to remain the pre-eminent challenge in acute cardiovascular care, and a combination of multi-pronged strategies are needed to improve outcomes in this population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39325244What 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.