Mechanical circulatory support in the treatment of cardiogenic shock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiogenic shock is a condition that is characterized by end-organ hypoperfusion secondary to reduced cardiac output, and is associated with substantial mortality. The mainstay of therapy for cardiogenic shock is reversal of the underlying cause, and concomitant supportive care with vasoactive medications (vasopressors and inotropes). Patients who continue to deteriorate despite these measures may require mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Here, we review the devices available for MCS, and their associated benefits and risks. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite growing use worldwide, there is little randomized evidence supporting the routine use of any specific device for MCS in cardiogenic shock. A large randomized trial of the intra-aortic balloon pump did not demonstrate short- or long-term improvement in mortality. The TandemHeart and Impella devices which assist in left ventricular unloading have only been evaluated in small randomized trials, which showed an increase in adverse events without improvement in mortality. Finally, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (provides both circulatory and respiratory support) and is currently being evaluated in large randomized clinical trials. SUMMARY: Various devices for MCS in cardiogenic shock are available, but routine use is not supported by high-quality randomized evidence. Given the resources required for initiation of MCS, use of these treatments should be limited to centers experienced in advanced cardiac care, and future research should focus on what role (if any) these devices have in clinical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".