ArticleCardiology journal2023
Long-term clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock according to the application and initiation time of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in South Korea.
Article in Cardiology journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Twenty-Year Clinical Experience of the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry.Korean circulation journal · 2025Review
- Risk of acute ischemic stroke with early versus late initiation of mechanical circulatory support in hospitalizations with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a propensity-matched analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Risk factors influencing the prognosis of patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Venoarterial Membrane Oxygenation in Cardiogenic Shock Complicated from an Acute Myocardial Infarction: An Overview and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.Biomedicines · 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
backgroundLimited data are available regarding the proper application time and long-term outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with cardiogenic shock. This cohort study appraised the clinical outcomes according to ECMO application without or before cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) combined with cardiogenic shock.
methodsBetween 2011 and 2015, a total of 13,104 patients with AMI were enrolled in a nationwide AMI registry. Eligible patients with cardiogenic shock, who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, with a 3-year clinical follow-up, were analyzed. The 949 included patients were divided into two groups: no ECMO (n = 845) and ECMO application (n = 104). The ECMO group was further divided into ECMO without or before CPR (n = 11) and ECMO after CPR (n = 93).
resultsSignificant differences were noted in major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) between the no ECMO and ECMO application groups during the 3-year follow-up (41.5% vs. 80.8%; p < 0.001). However, the ECMO without or before CPR group showed similar outcomes to the no ECMO group in 3-year MACEs (63.6% vs. 41.5%; p = 0.055). MACEs during 3 years of follow-up were significantly lower in the ECMO without or before CPR group than in the ECMO after CPR group (63.6% vs. 82.8%; p = 0.005).
conclusionsA significantly lower risk of major cardiac events in ECMO without or before CPR suggests that early application of ECMO can be a reasonable strategy to improve outcomes in patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock.
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.