ArticleAmerican journal of cardiovascular disease2021
SAcubitril/valsartan versus ramipril in patients with ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and cardiogenic SHOCK (SAVE-SHOCK): a pilot randomized controlled trial.
Article in American journal of cardiovascular disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of sacubitril-valsartan in the treatment of ventricular remodeling in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Early in-hospital initiation of angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor in post-acute myocardial infarction patients with impaired left ventricular systolic function: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Is Sacubitril/Valsartan a Superior Agent in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction? A Review of Randomized Comparative Trials.Hospital pharmacy · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan versus ramipril in patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock.
methodsPatients who received primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for STEMI complicated with cardiogenic shock were randomized 1:1 to sacubitril/valsartan versus ramipril after clinical stabilization. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days and 6 months. Secondary in-hospital clinical outcomes included recurrent shock, new or re-initiation of vasoactive medications, and acute kidney injury (AKI). All-cause death, cardiac death, hospitalization due to heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke were examined at 30 days and 6 months. Study ID 016-01-2018.
results100 patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock were included (mean age 54.7±10.3 years, 87% men). Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan and ramipril occurred at 38.18±18.44 versus 39.0±21.03 hours after stabilization, respectively. The primary outcome was similar between both groups at 30 days and 6 months. No difference in in-hospital or 30-day clinical outcomes was observed. However, at 6 months, patients in the sacubitril/valsartan arm suffered less hospitalization with HF (18% vs 38%, P=0.044) compared with patients in the ramipril arm. Other clinical outcomes at 6 months were similar between both groups.
conclusionsSacubitril/valsartan in patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock may be associated with improved clinical outcome at 6 months compared with ramipril. Larger randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up are recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35116186PMC8784671W4210821889What 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.