ArticleJACC. Advances2023
Treatment Intensity for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock: Comparison Between STEMI and Non-STEMI.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Road Less Traveled in Cardiogenic Shock: Why NSTEMI-CS Deserves a Closer Look Beyond the Electrocardiogram.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic shock in the course of myocardial infarction: the results of the Shock-POL registry.ESC heart failure · 2026Article
- National Heart Center - Saudi Health Council Acute Myocardial Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock Consensus Document.Saudi medical journal · 2026Article
- Impact of standardized team-based care on cardiogenic shock outcomes over time.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Impact of Baseline Cardiogenic Shock Severity on Outcomes in Patients Treated With Impella Device.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Observational
- Profiling of Cardiogenic Shock: Incorporating Machine Learning Into Bedside Management.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Review
- The Utility and Validation of SCAI-CSWG Stages in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- Cardiogenic Shock a Quarter Century Later: A Dire Outcome Barely Changed.JACC. Advances · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
35 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiogenic shock is a leading cause of mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Objectives: The authors sought to compare clinical characteristics, hospital trajectory, and drug and device use between patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS) and those without (non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock [NSTEMI-CS]). Methods: We analyzed data from 1,110 adult admissions with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) across 17 centers within Cardiogenic Shock Working Group. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. Results: Our study included 1,110 patients with AMI-CS, of which 731 (65.8%) had STEMI-CS and 379 (34.2%) had NSTEMI-CS. Most patients were male (STEMI-CS: 71.6%, NSTEMI-CS: 66.5%) and White (STEMI-CS: 53.8%, NSTEMI-CS: 64.1%). In-hospital mortality was 41% and was similar among patients with STEMI-CS and NSTEMI-CS (43% vs 39%, Conclusions: Despite increasing use of inotropic and vasoactive support and mechanical circulatory support throughout the hospitalization, both patients with STEMI-CS and NSTEMI-CS remain at increased risk for in-hospital mortality. Randomized controls trials are needed to elucidate whether timing and sequence of escalation of support improves outcomes in patients with AMI-CS.
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.