ArticleOpen heart2025
Clinical use and impact of mechanical circulatory support for myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock in the Netherlands: a registry-based propensity-matched analysis.
Article in Open heart, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite limited beneficial evidence, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is commonly used in patients with acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). In this Dutch registry, we investigated MCS usage, associated patient characteristics and clinical outcomes.
methodsThis real-world, multicentre registry included CS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention between 2017 and 2021 in 14 Dutch hospitals. The impact on clinical outcomes was analysed after 1:1 average propensity-score (aPS) matching.
resultsThis AMI-CS registry included 2217 patients with a mean age of 66.4 (±12.3) years and predominantly male (72.8%, n=1613). MCS was deployed in 516 patients (23.3%), of which the intra-aortic balloon pump was used most frequently (n=253, 49.0%). Impella was used in 94 patients (18.2%), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in 68 patients (13.2%) and 95 patients (18.4%) received multiple devices. Patients receiving MCS were younger (64.2 vs 67.0, p<0.01), presented with lower mean arterial pressures (74.7 vs 78.4 mm Hg, p<0.01), higher heart rates (88.3 vs 81.7 beats per minute, p<0.01) and higher initial lactate levels (6.4 vs 5.4 mmol/L, p<0.01). The percentage of resuscitated patients was comparable among MCS and non-MCS patients (38.6% vs 42.2%, p=0.17). The 30-day mortality rate was higher in MCS patients (55.0% vs 34.7%, p<0.01). After aPS-matching (n=970), 30-day mortality remained higher for MCS patients (53.8% vs 44.7%, p<0.01), with an associated OR of 1.44 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.85, p<0.01).
conclusionsDespite limited evidence, MCS was used in a fourth of all AMI-CS patients. MCS usage was associated with an increased 30-day mortality in this real-world setting, even after propensity-matching.
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.