Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2025 Aug;106(2):1446-1458.
doi: 10.1002/ccd.31698. Epub 2025 Jun 22.

Personalizing Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock: A Review and Comparison of Current Devices

Bradley Fujiuchi  1 , Kevin Benavente  1 , Hafeez Ul Hassan Virk  2 , Mahboob Alam  3 , Jacob C Jentzer  4   5 , Ryan J Tedford  6 , Sean Van Diepen  7 , Chayakrit Krittanawong  8
Affiliations
Review

Personalizing Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock: A Review and Comparison of Current Devices

Bradley Fujiuchi et al. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2025 Aug.

Abstract

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a high morbidity and mortality condition worldwide frequently complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and decompensated heart failure (HF). Within the management of CS, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices play a critical role in maintaining hemodynamic stability, preserving end-organ perfusion and bridging patients through to recovery, implantation of durable support or transplantation. Despite their use, optimal timing of initiation, as well as patient and device selection remain unclear. This review explores the current landscape of MCS devices, surrounding evidence and key distinctions between devices. With increasing acknowledgment for the heterogeneity of CS, understanding the strengths and limitations of each device remains crucial to improving outcomes in this high-risk population.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. M. Osman, M. Syed, S. Patibandla, et al., “Fifteen‐Year Trends in Incidence of Cardiogenic Shock Hospitalization and in‐Hospital Mortality in the United States,” Journal of the American Heart Association 10, no. 15 (2021): e021061, https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.021061.
    1. A. Ghajar, C. P. Ordonez, B. Philips, et al., “Cardiogenic Shock Related Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Trends in US Population: Heart Failure vs. Acute Myocardial Infarction as Contributing Causes,” International Journal of Cardiology 367 (2022): 45–48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2022.08.043.
    1. R. J. Goldberg, R. C. Makam, J. Yarzebski, D. D. McManus, D. Lessard, and J. M. Gore, “Decade‐Long Trends (2001–2011) in the Incidence and Hospital Death Rates Associated With the in‐Hospital Development of Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction,” Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 9, no. 2 (2016): 117–125, https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.002359.
    1. C. Vahdatpour, D. Collins, and S. Goldberg, “Cardiogenic Shock,” Journal of the American Heart Association 8, no. 8 (2019): e011991, https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.011991.
    1. R. Waksman, M. Pahuja, S. Van Diepen, et al., “Standardized Definitions for Cardiogenic Shock Research and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Scientific Expert Panel From the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC),” Circulation 148, no. 14 (2023): 1113–1126, https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.064527.

MeSH terms