Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock: A Narrative Review.
Cureus, ISSN: 2168-8184, Vol: 16, Issue: 9, Page: e69379
2024
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Review Description
Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a critical condition with high mortality rates, often arising from acute myocardial infarction and advanced heart failure. Despite advancements in medical therapy, traditional interventions frequently fall short of reversing the profound hemodynamic instability seen in CS. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have emerged as crucial therapeutic options, offering temporary stabilization and bridging to recovery, heart transplantation, or long-term ventricular assist device implantation. This narrative review explores the current landscape of MCS in CS, highlighting the various types of support devices, including intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP), veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), and percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) such as Impella and TandemHeart. We examine their mechanisms of action, clinical indications, and outcomes alongside the challenges and complications associated with their use. Additionally, we discuss the evolving guidelines and the role of MCS in contemporary CS management, emphasizing the need for timely intervention and a multidisciplinary approach. The review underscores the importance of individualized patient selection and device choice to optimize outcomes in this critically ill population.
Bibliographic Details
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know