Trial reportJAMA2006
Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.
Trial report in JAMA, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 168 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Shock Trial: Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock.
Left Ventricular Assist Device (Impella LP 2.5) vs. Intraaortic Balloon Counterpulsation (IABP) in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock and Acute Coronary Syndromes
The Effects of Intra Aortic Balloon Pump Prior to Revascularization on Mortality of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Complicated With Cardiogenic Shock
Who cites it
168 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 699 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multivessel vs. Culprit Vessel-Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Timing of initiation of intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: A meta-analysis.Clinical cardiology · 2019Pooled it
- Inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies for the treatment of cardiogenic shock or low cardiac output syndrome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction: diagnosis, monitoring and treatment: a German-Austrian S3 Guideline.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2012Guideline
- Levosimendan and mortality after coronary revascularisation: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Critical care (London, England) · 2011Pooled it
- Emergency vs Delayed Coronary Angiogram in Survivors of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Results of the Randomized, Multicentric EMERGE Trial.JAMA cardiology · 2022Trial
- Long-term 5-year outcome of the randomized IMPRESS in severe shock trial: percutaneous mechanical circulatory support vs. intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction.European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care · 2021Trial
- Implications of Myocardial Infarction on Management and Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Trial
- Ten-Year (2001-2011) Trends in the Incidence Rates and Short-Term Outcomes of Early Versus Late Onset Cardiogenic Shock After Hospitalization for Acute Myocardial Infarction.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2017Trial
- Long-term outcome in early survivors of cardiogenic shock at the acute stage of myocardial infarction: a landmark analysis from the French registry of Acute ST-elevation and non-ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction (FAST-MI) Registry.Critical care (London, England) · 2014Trial
- Trial
- Challenges of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Cardiogenic Shock: Real-World Outcomes.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2026Article
- Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in Intra-aortic Balloon Pump-Supported Cardiogenic Shock Among Patients Transferred to Tertiary Care Centers.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Impact of total occlusion of the infarct-related coronary artery on mortality of 2483 patients with acute myocardial infarction.World journal of cardiology · 2026Article
- Can dobutamine stress echocardiography predict improvement of left ventricular dyssynchrony after coronary artery bypass grafting?Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Experts' recommendations for the management of adult patients with cardiogenic shock.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Applying DanGer Shock Eligibility Criteria to a Real-World Cohort of Cardiogenic Shock Patients.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- Cardiogenic shock: a review of contemporary approaches and ongoing challenges.Future cardiology · 2025Review
- Impact of comorbidity burden on outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock: A Cardiogenic Shock Working Group analysis.European journal of heart failure · 2025Article
- Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiogenic Shock: A Narrative Review in Light of Recent Evidence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
108 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
contextCardiogenic shock remains the major cause of death for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (MI). Although survival in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute MI has been shown to be significantly higher at 1 year in those receiving early revascularization vs initial medical stabilization, data demonstrating long-term survival are lacking.
objectiveTo determine if early revascularization affects long-term survival of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute MI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: The Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial, an international randomized clinical trial enrolling 302 patients from April 1993 through November 1998 with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (mean [SD] age at randomization, 66 [11] years); long-term follow-up of vital status, conducted annually until 2005, ranged from 1 to 11 years (median for survivors, 6 years).
main outcome measuresAll-cause mortality during long-term follow-up.
resultsThe group difference in survival of 13 absolute percentage points at 1 year favoring those assigned to early revascularization remained stable at 3 and 6 years (13.1% and 13.2%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.97; log-rank P = .03). At 6 years, overall survival rates were 32.8% and 19.6% in the early revascularization and initial medical stabilization groups, respectively. Among the 143 hospital survivors, a group difference in survival also was observed (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.95; P = .03). The 6-year survival rates for the hospital survivors were 62.4% vs 44.4% for the early revascularization and initial medical stabilization groups, respectively, with annualized death rates of 8.3% vs 14.3% and, for the 1-year survivors, 8.0% vs 10.7%. There was no significant interaction between any subgroup and treatment effect.
conclusionsIn this randomized trial, almost two thirds of hospital survivors with cardiogenic shock who were treated with early revascularization were alive 6 years later. A strategy of early revascularization resulted in a 13.2% absolute and a 67% relative improvement in 6-year survival compared with initial medical stabilization. Early revascularization should be used for patients with acute MI complicated by cardiogenic shock due to left ventricular failure.
trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000552.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.