ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Protocol-Driven Best Practices and Cardiogenic Shock Survival in Asian Patients.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation of a standardized Impella-specific management pathway in cardiogenic shock.Journal of intensive care · 2026Article
- AI-Based Predictive Models for Cardiogenic Shock in STEMI: Real-World Data for Early Risk Assessment and Prognostic Insights.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiogenic shock carries high mortality. This study investigated the relationship between protocol-advocated best practices and outcomes.
methodsPatients with cardiogenic shock supported by Impella CP in an Asian tertiary cardiac center were evaluated for 30-day post percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) survival after adopting a standardized protocol emphasizing early mechanical circulatory support (shock-to-PVAD time ≤180 minutes), pulmonary artery catheterization for invasive hemodynamics, and safe vascular access.
resultsOf 109 consecutive patients (mean age 58.5±11.2, 80.7% male, 67% acute myocardial infarction, 33% acute decompensated heart failure), 45 (41.3%), 33 (30.3%), and 31 (28.4%) were in SCAI Shock Stages C, D, and E, respectively. A suggestive trend of improving 30-day survival was observed (56.8%, 63.9%, and 72.2% in successive one thirds, P1, P2, and P3 of patients), paralleling a similar trend in achievement of best practices. Patients achieving all 3 best practices significantly increased from 35.1% (P1) to 52.8% (P3) (
conclusionsAchievement of protocol-advocated best practices, especially early shock recognition and prompt PVAD support in appropriate patients, was associated with improved outcomes with PVAD use in cardiogenic shock. Future studies are suggested to confirm the benefits of a protocolized approach and evaluate the value of individual best practices.
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.