Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39432252›Full record

ArticleEuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology2024

Cangrelor versus crushed ticagrelor in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: rationale and design of the randomised, double-blind DAPT-SHOCK-AMI trial.

Zuzana Motovska, Ota Hlinomaz, Jan Mrozek, Petr Kala, Tobias Geisler, Milan Hromadka, Ibrahim Akin, Jan Precek, Jiri Kettner, Pavel Cervinka and 28 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03551964 (Cangrelor Versus Ticagrelor In Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated With Initial Cardiogenic Shock), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03551964 phase4completednot on this map

Cangrelor Versus Ticagrelor In Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated With Initial Cardiogenic Shock

TypeinterventionalSponsorFaculty Hospital Kralovske VinohradyRan2018 to 2025Enrolled605ConditionsAcute Myocardial Infarction, Cardiogenic ShockArmsCangrelor, Ticagrelor
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Oral P2YInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. The role of cangrelor in acute and high-risk PCI settings.European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

38 authors.

Zuzana MotovskaCardiocentre, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic.
Ota HlinomazFirst Department of Internal Medicine - Cardioangiology, ICRC, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University and St. Anne's University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic.
Jan MrozekCardiovascular Department, University Hospital Ostrava and Faculty of Medicine, University Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Petr KalaDepartment of Internal Medicine and Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine of Masaryk University and University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic.
Tobias GeislerDepartment of Cardiology and Angiology, University Hospital/Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Germany.
Milan HromadkaDepartment of Cardiology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
Ibrahim AkinFirst Department of Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim (UMM), Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Jan PrecekDepartment of Internal Medicine I - Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital, Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Jiri KettnerCardiology Department, Institute of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, Prague, Czech Republic.
Pavel CervinkaDepartment of Cardiology, Krajska zdravotni a.s., Masaryk Hospital and Jan Evangelista Purkyně University, Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic.
Gilles MontalescotSorbonne Université, ACTION Study Group, INSERM UMRS 1166, Institut de Cardiologie, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Paris, France.
Jiri JarkovskyInstitute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Jan BelohlavekSecond Department of Internal Medicine, Cardiovascular Medicine, General Teaching Hospital, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Josef Bis1st. Department of Medicine - Cardioangiology, University Hospital Hradec Kralove, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic.
Jan MatejkaDepartment of Cardiology, Pardubice Hospital, Pardubice, Czech Republic.
Alexandra VodzinskaDepartment of Cardiology, Hospital Agel Trinec-Podlesi, Trinec, Czech Republic.
Tamilla MuzafarovaCardiocentre, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic.
Pavol TomasovCardiology Department, Hospital Liberec, Liberec, Czech Republic.
Alexander ScheeCardiocenter, Regional Hospital Karlovy Vary, Karlovy Vary, Czech Republic.
Stanislav BartusInstitute of Cardiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland and Department of Cardiology, University Hospital, Kraków, Poland.
Andrea AndrasovaCardiocenter Nitra, Nitra, Slovak Republic.
Christoph B OlivierCardiovascular Clinical Research Center (CCRC), Department of Cardiology and Angiology, University Heart Center Freiburg - Bad Krozingen, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Ales KovarikCardiocenter, Regional Hospital Ceske Budejovice, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.
Petr OstadalDepartment of Cardiology, Na Homolce Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Regina DemlovaCZECRIN, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University and St. Anne's University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic.
Lenka SouckovaCZECRIN, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University and St. Anne's University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic.
Ivan VulevCINRE, Bratislava, Slovak Republic.
Zdeněk CoufalT. Bata Regional Hospital Zlin, Zlin, Czech Republic.
Janusz KochmanDepartment of Cardiology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Polan.
Iuri MarinovInstitute of Hematology and Blood Transfusion, Prague, Czech Republic.
Jacek KubicaDepartment of Cardiology and Internal Medicine, Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Gregory DucrocqDepartment of Cardiology, FACT (French Alliance for Cardiovascular Trials), DHU-FIRE, Bichat-Claude Bernard University Hospital, Paris, France.
Michal KarpisekBioVendor R&D, BioVendor-Laboratory Medicine, Brno, Czech Republic.
Zdenek KlimsaDepartment of Cardiology, Jihlava Hospital, Jihlava, Czech Republic.
Martin HudecDepartment of Acute Cardiology, SUSCCH, Banska Bystrica, Slovak Republic.
Petr WidimskyCardiocentre, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic.
Deepak L BhattMount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Dapt-Shockami Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a devastating and fatal complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). CS can affect the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of medications. The unique properties of cangrelor make it the optimal P2Y12 inhibitor for CS-AMI, in terms of both efficacy and safety. The DAPT-SHOCK-AMI trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03551964; EudraCT: 2018-002161-19) will assess the benefits of cangrelor in patients with an initial CS-AMI undergoing primary angioplasty. This randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled trial of approximately 550 patients (with an allowed 10% increase) in 5 countries using a double-blind design will compare initial P2Y12 inhibitor treatment strategies in patients with CS-AMI of (A) intravenous cangrelor and (B) ticagrelor administered as crushed tablets at a loading dose of 180 mg. The primary clinical endpoint is a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke within 30 days. The main secondary endpoints are (1) the net clinical endpoint, defined as death, MI, urgent revascularisation of the infarct-related artery, stroke, or major bleeding as defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria; (2) cardiovascular-related death, MI, urgent revascularisation, or heart failure; (3) heart failure; and (4) cardiovascular-related death, all (1-4) within 1 year after study enrolment. A platelet reactivity study that tests the laboratory antiplatelet benefits of cangrelor, when given in addition to standard antiplatelet therapy, will be conducted using vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation. The primary laboratory endpoints are the periprocedural rate of onset and the proportion of patients who achieve effective P2Y12 inhibition. The DAPT-SHOCK-AMI study is the first randomised trial to evaluate the benefits of cangrelor in patients with CS-AMI.

Indexed as

Adenosine MonophosphateMyocardial InfarctionPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsShock, CardiogenicTicagrelorAgedDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPhosphoproteinsPurinergic P2Y Receptor AntagonistsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdenosine MonophosphatecangrelorPhosphoproteinsPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsPurinergic P2Y Receptor AntagonistsTicagrelorVasodilator-Stimulated Phosphoprotein

Identifiers

PMID39432252
PMCPMC11472137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.