ArticlePloS one2022
Vasoactive pharmacological management according to SCAI class in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vasoactive intensity predicts mortality beyond SCAI staging in cardiogenic shock.European heart journal open · 2026Article
- Risk for shock in people with acute myocardial infarction: a middle-range theory.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVasoactive treatment is a cornerstone in treating hypoperfusion in cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction (AMICS). The purpose was to compare the achievement of treatment targets and outcome in relation to vasoactive strategy in AMICS patients stratified according to the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) shock classification.
methodsRetrospective analysis of patients with AMICS admitted to cardiac intensive care unit at two tertiary cardiac centers during 2010-2017 with retrieval of real-time hemodynamic data and dosages of vasoactive drugs from intensive care unit databases.
resultsOut of 1,249 AMICS patients classified into SCAI class C, D, and E, mortality increased for each shock stage from 34% to 60%, and 82% (p<0.001). Treatment targets of mean arterial blood pressure > 65mmHg and venous oxygen saturation > 55% were reached in the majority of patients; however, more patients in SCAI class D and E had values below treatment targets within 24 hours (p<0.001) despite higher vasoactive load and increased use of epinephrine for each severity stage (p<0.001). In univariate analysis no significant difference in mortality within SCAI class D and E regarding vasoactive strategy was observed, however in SCAI class C, epinephrine was associated with higher mortality and a significantly higher vasoactive load to reach treatment targets. In multivariate analysis there was no statistically association between individually vasoactive choice within each SCAI class and 30-day mortality.
conclusionHemodynamic treatment targets were achieved in most patients at the expense of increased vasoactive load and more frequent use of epinephrine for each shock severity stage. Mortality was high regardless of vasoactive strategy; only in SCAI class C, epinephrine was associated with a significantly higher mortality, but the signal was not significant in adjusted analysis.
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.