Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 448

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improved Outcomes Associated with the use of Shock Protocols: Updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative

Basir, Mir B., Kapur, Navin K., Patel, Kirit, Salam, Murad A., Schreiber, Theodore, Kaki, Amir, Hanson, Ivan, Almany, Steve, Timmis, Steve, Dixon, Simon, Kolski, Brian, Todd, Josh, Senter, Shaun, Marso, Steven, Lasorda, David, Wilkins, Charles, Lalonde, Thomas, Attallah, Antonious, Larkin, Timothy, Dupont, Allison, Marshall, Jeffrey, Patel, Nainesh, Overly, Tjuan, Green, Michael, Tehrani, Behnam, Truesdell, Alexander G., Sharma, Rahul, Akhtar, Yasir, McRae, Thomas, O'Neill, Brian, Finley, John, Rahman, Ayaz, Foster, Malcolm, Askari, Raza, Goldsweig, Andrew, Martin, Scott, Bharadwaj, Aditya, Khuddus, Matheen, Caputo, Christopher, Korpas, Denes, Cawich, Ian, McAllister, David, Blank, Nimrod, Alraies, M. Chadi, Fisher, Ruth, Khandelwal, Akshay, Alaswad, Khaldoon, Lemor, Alejandro, Johnson, Tyrell, Hacala, Michael, O'Neill, William W., on behalf of the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative Investigators·2019·Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
DOI 10.1002/ccd.28307
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: The National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative is a single‐arm, prospective, multicenter study to assess outcomes associated with early mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: Between July 2016 and February 2019, 35 sites participated and enrolled into the study. All centers agreed to treat patients with AMICS using a standard protocol emphasizing invasive hemodynamic monitoring and rapid initiation of MCS. Inclusion and exclusion criteria mimicked those of the “SHOCK” trial with an additional exclusion criteria of intra‐aortic balloon pump counter‐pulsation prior to MCS. Results: A total of 171 consecutive patients were enrolled. Patients had an average age of 63 years, 77% were male, and 68% were admitted with AMICS. About 83% of patients were on vasopressors or inotropes, 20% had a witnessed out of hospital cardiac arrest, 29% had in‐hospital cardiac arrest, and 10% were under active cardiopulmonary resuscitation during MCS implantation. In accordance with the protocol, 74% of patients had MCS implanted prior to PCI. Right heart catheterization was performed in 92%. About 78% of patients presented with ST‐elevation myocardial infarction with average door to support times of 85 ± 63 min and door to balloon times of 87 ± 58 min. Survival to discharge was 72%. Creatinine ≥2, lactate >4, cardiac power output (CPO) <0.6 W, and age ≥ 70 years were predictors of mortality. Lactate and CPO measurements at 12–24 hr reliably predicted overall mortality postindex procedure. Conclusion: In contemporary practice, use of a shock protocol emphasizing best practices is associated with improved outcomes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ccd.28307

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 448

Metadata

Authors
Basir, M. B., Kapur, N. K., Patel, K., Salam, M. A., Schreiber, T., Kaki, A., Hanson, I., Almany, S., Timmis, S., Dixon, S., Kolski, B., Todd, J., Senter, S., Marso, S., Lasorda, D., Wilkins, C., Lalonde, T., Attallah, A., Larkin, T., Dupont, A., Marshall, J., Patel, N., Overly, T., Green, M., Tehrani, B., Truesdell, A. G., Sharma, R., Akhtar, Y., McRae, T., O'Neill, B., Finley, J., Rahman, A., Foster, M., Askari, R., Goldsweig, A., Martin, S., Bharadwaj, A., Khuddus, M., Caputo, C., Korpas, D., Cawich, I., McAllister, D., Blank, N., Alraies, M. C., Fisher, R., Khandelwal, A., Alaswad, K., Lemor, A., Johnson, T., Hacala, M., O'Neill, W. W., & on behalf of the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative Investigators
Venue
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-04-25
Volume
93
Issue
7
Pages
1173-1183
ISSN
  • 1522-1946 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-726X
DOI
10.1002/ccd.28307
OpenAlex
W2942460591
Cited by
448
References
15
FWCI
19.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.