Scrutinizing mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock: Have we jumped the gun?

4Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Despite increasing therapeutic options and disposable resources, cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a formidable condition with high mortality. Today, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and microaxial flow devices (Impella, Abiomed, Danvers, USA) are established forms of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in CS, with increasing application over the years. Despite this trend, incorporation into current ESC (Class IIa, evidence C) and AHA/ACC (Class IIa, evidence B-NR) guidelines is based nearly exclusively on observational results. Despite these recommendations and increasing application, current evidence from randomized controlled trials has not provided clear mortality benefit. Thus, reflection on current evidence is hereby justified.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lüsebrink, E., Lanz, H., & Thiele, H. (2024, December 1). Scrutinizing mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock: Have we jumped the gun? Critical Care. BioMed Central Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-04853-y

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free