Trial reportClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2015
Gender differences in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II-trial.
Trial report in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- SCAI/EAPCI/ACVC Expert Consensus Statement on Cardiogenic Shock in Women.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Guideline
- Sex differences in treatments and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and epidemiological meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Intra-procedural determination of viability by myocardial deformation imaging: a randomized prospective study in the cardiac catheter laboratory.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2017Trial
- Culprit lesion location and outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II-trial.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2016Trial
- Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation and microcirculation in cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: an IABP-SHOCK II substudy.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2015Trial
- Sex disparities in revascularization strategies and mortality in infarct-related cardiogenic shock.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Equity at the Intersection of Heart Failure and Interventions: A Review of the Spectrum From Ambulatory Care to Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Review
- The Role of Intra-aortic Balloon Pump Therapy at Resource-Limited Institutions: A Bridge to Care Escalation.Cureus · 2026Article
- Impella 5.5 use in women: A multicenter study.JHLT open · 2025Article
- SCAI/EAPCI/ACVC Expert Consensus Statement on Cardiogenic Shock in Women: This statement was endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA).Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- Sex Disparities in Cardiogenic Shock: Risk Factors, Treatment Intensity, and Mortality in a Single Latin American Country.Global heart · 2025Article
- Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Takotsubo Syndrome: Sex-Related Differences.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Sex-related differences in patients presenting with heart failure-related cardiogenic shock.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2024Observational
- Addressing Barriers for Women with Advanced Heart Failure.Current cardiology reports · 2023Review
- The Impact of Sex on Cardiogenic Shock Outcomes Following ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Contemporary device management of cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction.Heart failure reviews · 2022Review
- Sex differences in acute cardiovascular care: a review and needs assessment.Cardiovascular research · 2022Review
- Gender Differences in Cardiogenic Shock Patients: Clinical Features, Risk Prediction, and Outcomes in a Hub Center.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Cardiogenic shock in the setting of acute myocardial infarction: Another area of sex disparity?World journal of cardiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is associated with high mortality. Previous studies regarding gender-specific differences in CS are conflicting and there are insufficient data for the presence of gender-associated differences in the contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention era. Aim of this study was therefore to investigate gender-specific differences in a large cohort of AMI patients with CS undergoing contemporary treatment.
methodsIn the randomized Intra-aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial, 600 patients with CS complicating AMI undergoing early revascularization were assigned to therapy with or without intra-aortic balloon pump. We compared sex-specific differences in these patients with regard to baseline and procedural characteristics as well as short- and long-term clinical outcome.
resultsOf 600 patients 187 (31%) were female. Women were significantly older than men and had a significantly lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure at presentation (p < 0.05 for all). Diabetes mellitus and hypertension were more frequent in women, whereas smoking was more frequent in men (p < 0.05 for all). Women showed a higher mortality within the first day after randomization (p = 0.004). However, after multivariable adjustment this numerical difference was no longer statistically significant. No gender-related differences in clinical outcome were observed after 1, 6 and 12 months of follow-up.
conclusionIn this large-scale multicenter study in patients with CS complicating AMI, women had a worse-risk profile in comparison to men. No significant gender-related differences in treatment as well as short- and long-term outcome were observed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25287767What 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.