Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Critical Care · October 7, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Respiratory support is common in cardiogenic shock and advanced heart failure, yet disease-specific evidence guiding intubation, spontaneous breathing trials, extubation, post-extubation support, and liberation during mechanical circulatory support remains limited. This narrative review synthesizes physiology, randomized evidence from adjacent populations, cardiogenic shock registries, weaning-induced pulmonary edema studies, and mechanical circulatory support/VA-ECMO literature. We distinguish weaning-induced pulmonary edema as a diagnostic phenotype from cardiac-limited ventilator liberation as a broader decisional framework in which pulmonary mechanics appear adequate but cardiovascular reserve, respiratory effort, or device strategy limits liberation. Because existing evidence is largely observational, this review does not provide guideline-level recommendations. Instead, it organizes bedside assessment, identifies where evidence ends and expert opinion begins, and proposes research priorities for critical care cardiology.