ライフサイエンスコーパス: cardiogenic shock

1 rogressive muscle weakness was admitted with cardiogenic shock.

2 rcutaneous mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock.

3 responsive and was found to be in a state of cardiogenic shock.

4 1 patients, 49 with septic shock and 22 with cardiogenic shock.

5 oronary intervention (PCI) in the setting of cardiogenic shock.

6 ematoma or hemorrhage, blood transfusion, or cardiogenic shock.

7 rrent pharmacological agents utilized during cardiogenic shock.

8 ical efficacy of these devices in refractory cardiogenic shock.

9 n patients with various causes of refractory cardiogenic shock.

10 be preferred over dopamine in patients with cardiogenic shock.

11 trength of association with and relevance to cardiogenic shock.

12 in the first 24 hours after the diagnosis of cardiogenic shock.

13 ous coronary intervention cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock.

14 of pulmonary edema, myocardial ischemia, or cardiogenic shock.

15 owing admission to the ICU) of patients with cardiogenic shock.

16 lycation end products might be beneficial in cardiogenic shock.

17 gment elevation myocardial infarction and no cardiogenic shock.

18 ight represent a novel therapeutic target in cardiogenic shock.

19 old (p=.019) increase in 28-day mortality in cardiogenic shock.

20 advances in treatment and outcome in post-MI cardiogenic shock.

21 are being increasingly used in patients with cardiogenic shock.

22 he appropriate use of pVADs in patients with cardiogenic shock.

23 hypoxia, such as in hypovolemic, septic, or cardiogenic shock.

24 aorta producing left ventricular failure and cardiogenic shock.

25 ciated with an increased risk for developing cardiogenic shock.

26 ocirculatory flow was fully preserved during cardiogenic shock.

27 ds in the hospital prognosis associated with cardiogenic shock.

28 dered last resort to prevent or to reverse a cardiogenic shock.

29 ine its predictors among 30-day survivors of cardiogenic shock.

30 d inappropriate vasodilatation of persistent cardiogenic shock.

31 ied each year regardless of whether they had cardiogenic shock.

32 enal function, and survival in patients with cardiogenic shock.

33 sease and congestive HF, pulmonary edema, or cardiogenic shock.

34 ns included chest pain, pulmonary edema, and cardiogenic shock.

35 prospective European multinational study of cardiogenic shock.

36 al variables have been used to judge risk in cardiogenic shock.

37 inical parameters for risk stratification in cardiogenic shock.

38 osis is similar in patients with and without cardiogenic shock.

39 ggressive management of patients who develop cardiogenic shock.

40 ic bradycardia, symptomatic hypotension, and cardiogenic shock.

41 alance (18.9%-35.3%), pneumonia (4.4%-6.3%), cardiogenic shock (0.5%-1.5%), and acute respiratory fai

42 ation (65.4%) than those who did not develop cardiogenic shock (10.6%) (P<0.001).

43 Among 45977 patients with AMI and cardiogenic shock (11298 in New York), 21 974 (47.8%) un

44 unterbalanced by 11 more per 1000 developing cardiogenic shock (1141 [5.0%] vs 885 [3.9%]; OR 1.30, 1

45 the high-risk unselected patient population (cardiogenic shock, 12.3%; cardiac arrest, 10.8%; and eld

46 , death presented with a higher incidence of cardiogenic shock (15 of 47 [32%] vs. 2 of 34 [6%]; p <

47 ty (5.7% CsA vs. 3.2% controls, p = 0.17) or cardiogenic shock (2.4% CsA vs. 1.5% controls, p = 0.33)

48 infarction (14.4% vs. 8.7%, p < 0.0001) and cardiogenic shock (2.56% vs. 0.38%, p < 0.0001) than tho

49 Maternal complications included cardiogenic shock (24%), mechanical support (28%), urgen

50 myocardial infarction (63.2% vs. 29.6%) and cardiogenic shock (29.0% vs. 2.2%); however, among in-ho

51 dobutamine or epinephrine in the presence of cardiogenic shock (2D) and atropine in the presence of s

52 ilure (7%), sepsis or septic shock (5%), and cardiogenic shock (5%).

53 more frequently presented with heart failure/cardiogenic shock (50% versus 7%; P<0.01), requiring int

54 segment-elevation myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (8.4% versus 4.3%).

55 had more major or life-threatening bleeding, cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury (stage II or III)

56 t myocarditis with biventricular failure and cardiogenic shock, acutely manifested with hypotension a

57 Cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction is a

58 t-ventricular assist device in patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction.

59 Acute cardiogenic shock after myocardial infarction is associa

60 Mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest r

61 ermia in 20 consecutive patients admitted in cardiogenic shock after successful resuscitation from ou

62 Two patients died of cardiogenic shock after the dissection.

63 pressure and cardiac output in patients with cardiogenic shock although potentially at the expense of

64 to each patient's needs based on severity of cardiogenic shock, amount of support needed, and the ove

65 a significant increase in the use of PCI for cardiogenic shock and a concomitant decrease in in-hospi

66 auses of death within the first 30 days were cardiogenic shock and anoxic brain injury after cardiac

67 herapeutic option for patients with advanced cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest.

68 y clinical factors that favored primary PCI, cardiogenic shock and delayed presentation were associat

69 The first two treated patients developed cardiogenic shock and died within a few days of T-cell i

70 Available data in animal models of post-MI cardiogenic shock and ischemia/reperfusion injury and sm

71 membrane oxygenation in patients with severe cardiogenic shock and little/no residual left ventricula

72 atients with acute coronary syndrome-related cardiogenic shock and may help therapeutic decision maki

73 may be prognostic biomarkers for survival in cardiogenic shock and might represent a novel therapeuti

74 emale, and had more comorbidities, including cardiogenic shock and multivessel disease.

75 zards models to test the association between cardiogenic shock and outcomes, adjusting for patient an

76 sought to evaluate the associations between cardiogenic shock and post-discharge mortality and all-c

77 djunct to revascularization in patients with cardiogenic shock and reduces infarct size when placed p

78 porary stabilization of otherwise refractory cardiogenic shock and serve as a bridge-to-decision ther

79 idity and mortality in post-MI patients with cardiogenic shock and warrants study a new treatment tha

80 rial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock, and 3) extracorporeal cardiopulmonary

81 Nearly 4% were in cardiogenic shock, and 5.2% were on mechanical ventilati

82 coronary intervention, those presenting with cardiogenic shock, and acute decompensated heart failure

83 es, higher peak troponin levels, in-hospital cardiogenic shock, and cardiology follow-up within 2 wee

84 shock survivors, identify the correlates of cardiogenic shock, and compare global quality of life an

85 ring more than 48 hours after randomization, cardiogenic shock, and congestive heart failure during t

86 with cardiogenic shock, the hemodynamics of cardiogenic shock, and hemodynamic effects of percutaneo

87 h in-hospital post-procedural heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and mortality.

88 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, and multivessel disease, and were ass

89 nd point of death, congestive heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and reinfarction (adjusted odds ratio

90 mellitus, renal dysfunction, cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, and ST-segment elevation myocardial i

91 T-segment elevation myocardial infarction or cardiogenic shock, and those with no ST-segment elevatio

92 Mortality rates in post-MI cardiogenic shock approach 50% despite rapid revasculari

93 Early observations of cardiogenic shock as a systemic clinical syndrome were f

94 levels play a central role in patients with cardiogenic shock associated with proinflammatory and de

95 tients with acute anterior STEMI but without cardiogenic shock at 30 sites in 9 countries from June 2

96 was significantly higher among patients with cardiogenic shock at 60 days (9.6% vs. 5.5%) and 1 year

97 point of death, congestive heart failure, or cardiogenic shock at 90 days (adjusted HR, 2.4; 95% CI,

98 patients who underwent PCI in the setting of cardiogenic shock at one of 1429 National Cardiovascular

99 iods between 2001 and 2011, who did not have cardiogenic shock at the time of hospital presentation.

100 of death, malignant ventricular arrhythmia, cardiogenic shock, atrioventricular block, and reinfarct

101 Two patients died secondary to cardiogenic shock before imaging studies.

102 vice effectiveness in 10 pigs that developed cardiogenic shock but survived massive PE after injectio

103 percentage points (95% CI, -5.3 to -1.9) and cardiogenic shock by -24 percentage points (95% CI, -4.3

104 atient features, treatments, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock by MI classification: ST-segment-eleva

105 Hypoxic piglets had cardiogenic shock (cardiac output 40% to 48% of baseline

106 Hypoxic piglets had cardiogenic shock (cardiac output 58% +/- 1% of baseline

107 In addition to known predictors of delay (cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, and prolonged door-in

108 e previously shown that neonates in profound cardiogenic shock caused by a severe Ebstein anomaly can

109 Patients with cardiogenic shock caused by acute coronary syndrome (n=1

110 Mortality in cardiogenic shock complicating acute coronary syndrome i

111 Although survival in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute MI has been shown t

112 is considered to be a class I treatment for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarcti

113 rial, we randomly assigned 600 patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarcti

114 tly reduce 30-day mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarcti

115 nds (1975 to 2005) in the incidence rates of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarcti

116 in the incidence and hospital death rates of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarcti

117 Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarcti

118 the hospital survival rate of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarcti

119 Patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarcti

120 nderwent coronary artery bypass grafting for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarcti

121 for acute decompensated heart failure (i.e., cardiogenic shock complicating chronic cardiomyopathy) h

122 mortality rates in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock complicating MI despite an open infarc

123 vanced glycation end products in humans with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction.

124 mized studies suggests that in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment-elevation myoc

125 nts with multivessel disease presenting with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment-elevation myoc

126 dependent predictors for 28-day mortality in cardiogenic shock confirmed by receiver-operator charact

127 c dysfunction and mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) after acute myocardial infarction

128 s or risk factors for operative mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients undergoing coronary arte

129 Mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS) remains high.

130 e myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains high.

131 d multivariable adjusted odds of dying after cardiogenic shock declined during the most recent study

132 y, the use of IABP in the setting of PCI for cardiogenic shock decreased over time without a concurre

133 was observed for the subset of patients with cardiogenic shock, decreasing from 51.6% to 43.1% (p for

134 inhibitor in patients with MI and refractory cardiogenic shock despite establishment of an open infar

135 intractable refractory arrhythmic storm and cardiogenic shock despite optimal medical therapy were i

136 Patients in whom cardiogenic shock developed had a significantly greater

137 utcomes including death, cardiac arrest, and cardiogenic shock did not significantly change following

138 ed for patients with acute MI complicated by cardiogenic shock due to left ventricular failure.

139 se-fatality rates for patients who developed cardiogenic shock during hospitalization for an acute my

140 Among 112,668 AMI survivors, 5% had cardiogenic shock during hospitalization.

141 On average, 3.7% of these patients developed cardiogenic shock during their acute hospitalization wit

142 Overall, 6.6% of patients developed cardiogenic shock during their index hospitalization.

143 In advanced cardiogenic shock, early mechanical circulatory support

144 ts who have acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, early revascularization of the culpri

145 elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock enrolled in the GUSTO (Global Utilizat

146 ular fibrillation, but increases the risk of cardiogenic shock, especially during the first day or so

147 licly reported outcomes), 2006-2007 (time 2: cardiogenic shock excluded on a trial basis), and 2008 a

148 ial basis), and 2008 and thereafter (time 3: cardiogenic shock excluded permanently) in New York and

149 evelop effective therapies for patients with cardiogenic shock following acute MI.

150 e been fundamental to resuscitation of acute cardiogenic shock for decades.

151 Prompt triage of all patients in cardiogenic shock for early angiography, intra-aortic ba

152 atients (63.6+/-12.2 years; 81.7% male) with cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction recei

153 In patients with acute cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction, Impe

154 The exclusion of patients with ongoing cardiogenic shock from New York PCI public reports in 20

155 ents with anoxic brain injury and refractory cardiogenic shock from public reporting has made them mo

156 creased substantially after the exclusion of cardiogenic shock from public reporting in New York, the

157 001 for time 3 vs 1]) after the exclusion of cardiogenic shock from public reporting in New York.

158 2006, New York began excluding patients with cardiogenic shock from the publicly reported percutaneou

159 urvival rates with the myocardial infarction/cardiogenic shock group used as the reference.

160 Delays caused by cardiac arrest and/or cardiogenic shock had the highest in-hospital mortality

161 Acute cardiogenic shock has a high mortality.

162 The natural history of cardiogenic shock has improved significantly with the ut

163 Therapeutic hypothermia for post-MI cardiogenic shock has multiple potentially beneficial ph

164 tion therapy, the prognosis of patients with cardiogenic shock has remained poor.

165 Hospital survivors of AMI who had cardiogenic shock have a higher risk of death and/or hos

166 Patients with cardiogenic shock have high in-hospital and 30-day morta

167 (AMI) complicated by acute heart failure or cardiogenic shock have high mortality with conventional

168 However, the majority of patients with cardiogenic shock have multivessel disease, and whether

169 oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support for refractory cardiogenic shock have rarely been described.

170 Cardiogenic shock, heart failure signs/symptoms, and non

171 reases in hospital survival in patients with cardiogenic shock, however, were observed from the mid-1

172 art Association class IV (HR=4.42; P=0.002), cardiogenic shock (HR=3.75; P=0.003), creatinine (HR=1.0

173 strongest predictors were diabetes mellitus, cardiogenic shock, hypertension, previous myocardial inf

174 ft ventricular ejection fraction in 27+/-9%; cardiogenic shock in 23%, and electrical storm in 62% of

175 eported data on the use of these devices for cardiogenic shock in a variety of different settings, in

176 ces (CF-VADs) in the treatment of refractory cardiogenic shock in Interagency Registry for Mechanical

177 ts with myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock in New York and Michigan, 905 (42.6%)

178 ncidence and hospital case-fatality rates of cardiogenic shock in patients hospitalized with acute my

179 refractory arrhythmic storm responsible for cardiogenic shock in patients resistant to antiarrhythmi

180 Cardiogenic shock in patients with STEMI was associated

181 electively protected during severe states of cardiogenic shock in the absence of cardiac arrest.

182 rdiac output in critically ill patients with cardiogenic shock in the intensive care.

183 mise as a potential therapeutic strategy for cardiogenic shock in the post-MI setting.

184 Heart failure and cardiogenic shock, in severe cases, are syndromes charac

185 3 calendar year periods: 2002-2005 (time 1: cardiogenic shock included in publicly reported outcomes

186 The current pharmacological treatment for cardiogenic shock includes inotropes, vasopressors and d

187 ulatory support devices for the treatment of cardiogenic shock, including current evidence, contraind

188 Cardiogenic shock, increasing pulmonary/systemic flow ra

189 bypass graft surgery, myocardial infarction/cardiogenic shock, injury, and infection/septic shock.

190 portunity to rapidly stabilize patients with cardiogenic shock involving the RV.

191 Cardiogenic shock is a deadly complication of an acute m

192 Cardiogenic shock is a high-acuity, potentially complex,

193 h acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock is associated with a high in-hospital

194 Cardiogenic shock is associated with high mortality in p

195 Cardiogenic shock is the most common cause of death in p

196 tem blocker therapy in patients with ongoing cardiogenic shock is unknown.

197 onducting randomized trials in patients with cardiogenic shock, lack of clear guidelines on indicatio

198 isease, New York Heart Association class IV, cardiogenic shock, left main coronary stenosis, and valv

199 ng abdominal CT in patients with unexplained cardiogenic shock may allow an earlier diagnosis.

200 Cardiogenic shock may compromise patient autonomy, or th

201 h acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (mean [SD] age at randomization, 66 [1

202 d at testing the hypothesis that patients in cardiogenic shock might benefit from mild therapeutic hy

203 We conclude that in cardiogenic shock mild therapeutic hypothermia provides

204 tion between hemodynamic variables and early cardiogenic shock mortality in critically ill patients.

205 nfection/septic shock, myocardial infarction/cardiogenic shock (n=1705), and coronary artery bypass g

206 To improve outcomes, cardiogenic shock needs to be recognized early in its co

207 low cytometry was significantly increased in cardiogenic shock nonsurvivors (137.02+/-7.48 mean fluor

208 Cardiogenic shock occurred in 12.2% of patients with STE

209 rongest predictors of in-hospital death were cardiogenic shock (odds ratio, 6.01; 95% confidence inte

210 he rivaroxaban group; this patient died from cardiogenic shock on day 50 after a type A aortic dissec

211 ve, 0.77 at 12 hr up to 0.93 at 5-10 d after cardiogenic shock onset).

212 tion in patients who most often present with cardiogenic shock or acute pulmonary edema.

213 gastrointestinal bleeding or to present with cardiogenic shock or after cardiac arrest.

214 -0.89]; P = .002) and the 2194 patients with cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest (41.5% vs 46.7%; OR,

215 e most pronounced for the 6081 patients with cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest (prereporting: 44.2%

216 Patients with cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest on presentation were

217 28 non-ST-elevation patients with MI without cardiogenic shock or HF at presentation treated at 609 h

218 into clinical practice for the treatment of cardiogenic shock or refractory nontolerated ventricular

219 ve heart failure (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.2), cardiogenic shock (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 2.7-10.9), and fluid

220 56 to 0.71) or concomitant cardiac arrest or cardiogenic shock (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.70).

221 rt failure (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.52), cardiogenic shock (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.08 to 1.48), and

222 ith a preimplantation profile of 1 (critical cardiogenic shock) or 2 (progressive decline) were asses

223 acute outcomes (death, reinfarction, stroke, cardiogenic shock, or congestive heart failure) among pa

224 cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or heart failure) and secondary outco

225 cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or heart failure.

226 onship between hemodynamic variables and the cardiogenic shock outcome in critically ill patients.

227 nintended consequence of public reporting of cardiogenic shock outcomes in New York.

228 ne in the death, but not incidence, rates of cardiogenic shock over time.

229 -segment-elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (P<0.001).

230 dritic cell death compared to normal sera or cardiogenic shock (p<0.005).

231 ew is to discuss four sub-classifications of cardiogenic shock patients (acute myocardial infarction,

232 stics, the risk of death remained higher for cardiogenic shock patients in the first 60 days after di

233 ion (ECMO) has allowed approximately half of cardiogenic shock patients to receive an implantable lef

234 Cardiogenic shock patients who received the latest gener

235 did not affect microcirculation variables in cardiogenic shock patients with little/no residual left

236 endently associated with 28-day mortality in cardiogenic shock patients.

237 EDLINE search was conducted with MeSH terms: cardiogenic shock, percutaneous mechanical circulatory s

238 tation after cardiac arrest, presentation in cardiogenic shock, presentation in heart failure, presen

239 e in patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock prior to cardiogenic shock resolution.

240 culatory support in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock providing a bridge to long-term mechan

241 To decrease the incidence of cardiogenic shock, public education regarding early pres

242 Severe presentation (cardiogenic shock, pulmonary edema, or cardiac arrest) w

243 of patients undergoing PCI in the setting of cardiogenic shock received an IABP and 6.7% received O-M

244 n to ventricular arrhythmias, heart failure, cardiogenic shock, recurrent myocardial infarction, and

245 an emergency setting in patients with acute cardiogenic shock refractory to conventional therapy irr

246 tments are insufficient for the treatment of cardiogenic shock refractory to inotropic support, there

247 The incidence rates of cardiogenic shock remained stable between 1975 and the l

248 Mortality for refractory cardiogenic shock remains high.

249 he mortality rate associated with refractory cardiogenic shock remains markedly elevated, with INTERM

250 Today, cardiogenic shock remains the leading cause of death amo

251 Cardiogenic shock remains the major cause of death for p

252 Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains unacceptably high despite earl

253 ciated with an increased risk for developing cardiogenic shock remains warranted.

254 ort, the independent predictors of MACE were cardiogenic shock, renal disease, history of peripheral

255 refractory arrhythmic storm responsible for cardiogenic shock resistant to antiarrhythmic drugs.

256 otensin-aldosterone system blockers prior to cardiogenic shock resolution (27.3% vs 16.9%; adjusted h

257 al infarction and cardiogenic shock prior to cardiogenic shock resolution.

258 gy, pathophysiology, causes, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock; reviews contemporary best medical, su

259 Inhibition of inflammation during cardiogenic shock seems to be a potential therapeutic ta

260 g VAD is feasible in a variety of refractory cardiogenic shock settings.

261 SAVR was associated with higher risk of cardiogenic shock, severe bleeding, and acute kidney inj

262 ected left main artery as the target vessel, cardiogenic shock, severely depressed left ventricular f

263 gently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK (SHOCK) trial registry were included.

264 gently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK (SHOCK) trial showed significantly imp

265 gently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial, an international random

266 vice (pVAD) in patients in severe refractory cardiogenic shock (SRCS) despite intra-aortic balloon pu

267 se in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with cardiogenic shock, ST elevation acute coronary syndromes

268 , congestive heart failure, pulmonary edema, cardiogenic shock, stroke, myocardial infarction).

269 and small case series of human patients with cardiogenic shock suggest its promise as a potential the

270 This scientific statement on cardiogenic shock summarizes the epidemiology, pathophys

271 s with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiogenic shock survive hospitalization; little is kno

272 oal was to describe the functional status of cardiogenic shock survivors, identify the correlates of

273 disease and acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, the 30-day risk of a composite of dea

274 hey group using ECMO for therapy of advanced cardiogenic shock, the application of ECMO is described.

275 e the contemporary outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock, the hemodynamics of cardiogenic shock

276 el disease, acute myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock to one of two initial revascularizatio

277 e IABP-SHOCK II (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock) trial.

278 rnational Study in Unstable MI Patients With Cardiogenic Shock [TRIUMPH]) with planned enrollment of

279 imilar to that of historical controls not in cardiogenic shock undergoing elective revascularization.

280 nd adequate cardiac support in patients with cardiogenic shock unresponsive to inotropes/vasopressors

281 cute myocardial infarction, unstable angina, cardiogenic shock, ventricular arrhythmia, atrioventricu

282 onia (n=1 in the dulaglutide 0.75 mg group); cardiogenic shock; ventricular fibrillation; and an unkn

283 ase-fatality rate for patients who developed cardiogenic shock was 41.4%.

284 The cause of refractory cardiogenic shock was failure of medical management in 7

285 This excess of cardiogenic shock was mainly during days 0-1 after admis

286 Until recently, there were few options if cardiogenic shock was refractory to vasopressors or intr

287 ansplantation, INTERMACS profile 1 (critical cardiogenic shock) was present in 207 patients, INTERMAC

288 tricular fibrillation arrest and presence of cardiogenic shock were associated strongly with mortalit

289 with septic shock and not patients with pure cardiogenic shock were characterized by a rapid and prof

290 Patients in cardiogenic shock were excluded.

291 with non-ventricular fibrillation arrest or cardiogenic shock were included, and patients with concu

292 segment-elevation myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock were included.

293 complicating physiology (eg, hypovolemia or cardiogenic shock), while invasive hemodynamic monitorin

294 Among patients with cardiogenic shock who survive 30 days after STEMI, annua

295 A total of 541 patients with cardiogenic shock who were enrolled in the SHould we eme

296 almost two thirds of hospital survivors with cardiogenic shock who were treated with early revascular

297 s used to assemble a cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock with similar baseline characteristics

298 After excluding patients with cardiogenic shock, with previous bypass surgery, or who

299 ly effective, facilitating rapid reversal of cardiogenic shock without device-related complications.

300 e [<75 years vs >/=75 years] and presence of cardiogenic shock [yes vs no]) to heparin (70 U/kg) or b