ArticleESC heart failure2025
Pre-admission beta-blocker therapy and outcomes in cardiogenic shock: Insights from the Altshock-2 Registry.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- State-of-the-art review: ß-blockade in critical illness.Intensive care medicine · 2026Review
- Risk Stratification in Predicting Cardiogenic Shock 30-Day Mortality admitted to ICU: beyond the Prognostic Performance of SHARC and SCAI Classifications.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Pre-admission beta-blocker therapy and outcomes in cardiogenic shock: Insights from the Altshock-2 Registry.ESC heart failure · 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsWe aimed to assess the impact of pre-admission beta-blocker (BB) therapy on the clinical characteristics, in-hospital treatment and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS).
methodsAll patients enrolled in the multicentre prospective Altshock-2 registry since March 2020 with available data on pre-admission BB therapy were included. Clinical characteristics, in-hospital management, haemodynamic parameters and clinical outcomes were compared in patients with versus without BB therapy. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality.
resultsA total of 668 patients were included [median age 66 (56-74) years, male sex 76.5%]: 299 patients (44.8%) with and 369 patients (55.2%) without previous BB therapy. Patients receiving pre-admission BB therapy had more frequently heart failure-related CS (43.8% vs. 17.9%) and less frequently cardiac arrest at presentation (20.1% vs. 27.8%, P = 0.027). Levosimendan was used less frequently and dobutamine was used more frequently in patients with baseline BB therapy (P = 0.033 and P = 0.043, respectively). Differences in the early haemodynamic response to vasoactive drugs were observed between patients with and without previous BB therapy, with a significant impact of baseline BB on mean arterial pressure (MAP) response during norepinephrine infusion (P = 0.012) and with dobutamine having a reduced response in MAP and heart rate in patients receiving BBs before admission (P = 0.023 and P = 0.001, respectively). In-hospital mortality was not significantly different between the BB and no-BB groups (40% vs. 33.7%; adjusted odds ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 0.84-2.07, P = 0.224). Similarly, baseline BB therapy was not independently associated with 48 h mortality (12.7% vs. 14.6%; adjusted odds ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 0.64-1.87, P = 0.749). The lack of association between baseline BB therapy and mortality was also confirmed at inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted analysis.
conclusionsIn a real-world, contemporary cohort of patients with CS, previous BB therapy influenced the haemodynamic response to vasoactive drugs, but it was not associated with in-hospital mortality.
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.