ArticleFuture cardiology2025
Case report: ST-elevation myocardial infarction complications. How far will you go?
Article in Future cardiology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Herein, we review the critical role of a multi-disciplinary team approach in managing the intricate complications of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) implantation represents a potentially life-saving intervention, often serving as a bridge to heart transplantation (HTx). However, complications from prior interventions, in patients receiving MCS due to STEMI-CS, may present additional challenges to successful HTx candidacy. A 63-year-old male suffered out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and was hospitalized due to acute anterior STEMI-CS. Emergency percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in the setting of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Despite successful revascularization and subsequent optimal medical therapy hemodynamic status remained compromised, the decision was made to implant a HeartMate 3 (HM3) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as a bridge to HTx. HM3 LVAD was implanted without complications and patient was weaned from mechanical ventilation. The later postoperative period was complicated by infections leading to the LVAD-related complications. Moreover, the patient experienced repeated episodes of stridor, which were attributed to significant tracheal stenosis (due to temporary tracheostomy). Finally, a suitable heart donor was found and a successful HTx was performed.
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.