Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40109709›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2025

Acute Myocardial Infarction and Stage E Shock: Insights From the RECOVER III Study.

Ivan D Hanson, Andres Palomo, Adam Tawney, Simon R Dixon, Dana Bentley, Srihari S Naidu, Mir B Basir, William W O'Neill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Comment: Acute Myocardial Infarction and Stage E Shock: Insights From the RECOVER III Study.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Stage E Cardiogenic Shock: Hold 'Em, Fold 'Em, or Double Down?Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    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

8 authors.

Ivan D HansonDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan.
Andres PalomoDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan.
Adam TawneyDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan.
Simon R DixonDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan.
Dana BentleyAbiomed, Danvers, Massachusetts.
Srihari S NaiduDepartment of Cardiology, Westchester Medical Center and New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York.
Mir B BasirDivision of Cardiology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan.
William W O'NeillDivision of Cardiology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The present analysis reports characteristics and outcomes of Society of Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) stage E shock patients with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMICS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) who improved to stage C or D within 24 hours of Impella support ("responders") vs those patients who remained in stage E ("nonresponders"). Methods: The SCAI shock stage was assigned prior to initiation of Impella, and a second SCAI shock classification was performed within 24 hours of Impella support. SCAI shock stage was assigned independently by 2 reviewers; in cases where there was a discrepancy, a third reviewer adjudicated the stage assignment. Criteria such as a low pH (≤7.1), the need for multiple vasopressors/mechanical circulatory support devices, or the need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation were used to define stage E shock. Results: Of the 415 RECOVER III patients, 298 presented in stage E shock; 152 (51.1%) were responders and 145 (48.8%) were nonresponders. Kaplan-Meier 30-day survival estimates were 56.9% and 28.6% in responders and nonresponders, respectively ( Conclusions: Stage E patients who improved to stage C/D within 24 hours of Impella support had significantly better survival than those who remained in stage E. Predictors of responsiveness to therapy were mostly related to shock treatment strategy, and not baseline characteristics. This suggests that whether stage E patients will improve with Impella support is difficult to determine at the time support is initiated, and the SCAI shock stage should be repeated within 24 hours to more accurately determine the prognosis.

Indexed as

acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shockmechanical circulatory supportpercutaneous coronary interventionSCAI shock class

Identifiers

PMID40109709
PMCPMC11916721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.