ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2025
A Framework for Exception From Informed Consent in Trials Enrolling Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2025. 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.
- Way(s) Forward for Evidence Generation in Cardiogenic Shock.Circulation. Heart failure · 2026Article
- Article
- Cardiogenic shock: diagnosis, phenotyping and management.Intensive care medicine · 2025Review
- Pain Management Research in Prehospital Settings: The Pain of Exception from Informed Consent.Ethics & human researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock (CS) is critical end-organ hypoperfusion attributable to reduced cardiac output. Acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction with CS (AMI-CS) has high mortality. Clinical research is challenging in such patients as they often cannot provide consent, lack available legal representatives, and require initiation of therapy. Multiple trials have enrolled patients with AMI-CS outside the United States under deferred consent. Trials in the United States have enrolled patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest under exception from informed consent (EFIC). However, AMI-CS has a longer therapeutic window to initiate treatment than out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and more patients or their representatives can engage in treatment decisions. We provide a rationale for how a trial enrolling patients with AMI-CS could qualify for conduct using EFIC by meeting each criterion specified in US human subject regulations. AMI-CS is a life-threatening situation, available treatments are unsatisfactory, and collection of valid evidence is necessary. Obtaining informed consent is often not feasible, and trial participation could benefit subjects. Only enrolling consented patients is impracticable and could reduce the study's generalizability. We propose a therapeutic window of 30 minutes within the study intervention must be initiated, with consent sought within 15 minutes, respecting any refusal or objection to enrollment, and otherwise enrollment under EFIC. A trial could enroll patients with AMI-CS under EFIC and can involve both patients and their representatives. Successful use of EFIC in trials of other interventions in patients with CS or enrolling patients with other acute cardiovascular conditions could increase the available evidence base to improve care.
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.