Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

By S. van Diepen, Jason N. Katz, Nancy M. Albert, Timothy D. Henry, A. Jacobs, N. Kapur, A. Kilic, V. Menon, E. Ohman, N. Sweitzer and 3 more. Circulation, 2017

1,422 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Biomedical Engineering, Emergency Medicine, Surgery

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d399ca3fc9774a1293b42833db22ad9f55d9ff7b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. Srihari S. Naidu
2. D. Baran
3. David A. Baran
4. S. van Diepen
5. J. Jentzer
6. C. Grines
7. Steven M. Hollenberg
8. S. Bailey

Citations in the corpus

• SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock (2019, background): “An ideal schema would lead to changes in behavior such as facilitating the “hub-and-spoke” model of shock care, based on recognition of risk of deterioration and further adverse outcomes.(10) Lastly, the schema should have prognostic discriminatory potential.”
• SCAI SHOCK Stage Classification Expert Consensus Update: A Review and Incorporation of Validation Studies (2022, background): “…parameters, such as the ratio of right atrial to pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (right atrial pressure/pulmonary capillary wedge pressure), 28 and pulmonary artery pulsatility index 31,32 among others are now advised to identify patients with RV failure who may potentially require…”