ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2025
Temporary Mechanical Support in Cardiogenic Shock Secondary to Heart Failure: An Evolving Paradigm.
Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Admitted in Cardiac Intensive Care Unit with Cardiogenic Shock: A Single-Center Study.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock can be defined as a state of circulatory collapse resulting in hypoperfusion and end-organ dysfunction. It carries a large burden of mortality, but management strategies are driven by expert consensus rather than adequately powered randomized clinical trials. The goal of this review is to highlight the differences in presentation and outcomes in cardiogenic shock depending on the etiology, such as acute myocardial infarction (AMI) versus acute-on-chronic heart failure (HF), gender-based differences in treatment strategies and outcomes and the need for more precise risk stratification and modeling to improve the efficiency of treatment delivery in a personalized fashion. PubMed and Google Scholar were used to search the literature for this qualitative review. The differences in gender and etiology of cardiogenic shock are not consistent in all studies in the exiting literature. There is a need for identification of novel risk factors that define the different phenotypes that present with similar hemodynamic and biomarker profiles. There is an urgent need to devise a methodology to understand and differentiate the different cardiogenic shock phenotypes and their trajectories. Better risk prediction models should be generated to help deliver well-tailored treatment, paving the way to the efficient delivery of personalized medicine.
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.