Trial reportESC heart failure2025
Prognostic impact of SCAI shock severity classes in AMI-related cardiogenic shock: A sub-study of the ECLS-SHOCK Trial.
Trial report 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.
- Prognostic impact of SCAI shock severity classes in AMI-related cardiogenic shock: A sub-study of the ECLS-SHOCK Trial.ESC heart failure · 2025Trial
- Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Myocardial Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Lessons from Contemporary Randomized Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The red blood cell distribution width-to-albumin ratio and 28-day mortality in patients with severe cardiogenic shock: a retrospective cohort study based on MIMIC-IV with single-center external validation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Classification provides risk stratification of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). This sub-study of the ECLS-SHOCK trial investigates the prognostic impact of SCAI stages in AMI-CS and the influence of SCAI stages on the effect of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) therapy in AMI-CS patients.
methodsPatients with AMI-CS enrolled in the multicentre, randomized ECLS-SHOCK trial were included. The outcomes, treatment effect and safety of ECLS were stratified according to SCAI stage at admission using a post-hoc classification.
resultsFrom a total of 417 patients enrolled in the ECLS-SHOCK trial between June 2019 and November 2022, 51.6% (n = 215), 13.4% (n = 56) and 35.0% (n = 146) presented in SCAI Stages C, D and E, respectively. SCAI stages were associated with the risk of 30 day all-cause mortality (C vs. D vs. E: 32.6% vs. 67.9% vs. 64.4%, P < 0.001), with rates of renal replacement therapy at 30 days (C vs. D vs. E: 7.0% vs. 19.6% vs. 13.7%, P = 0.03) and with poor neurological outcomes (C vs. D vs. E: 17.2% vs. 44.4% vs. 36.5%, P < 0.001). No interaction was observed between SCAI stage and the treatment effect of ELCS on 30 day all-cause mortality (ELCS vs. control SCAI C: 32.7% vs. 32.4%; SCAI D: 68.4% vs. 66.7%; SCAI E: 59.7% vs. 68.4%, P for interaction = 0.65).
conclusionsIn AMI-CS patients included in the ECLS-SHOCK trial, SCAI stages at admission were predictive for mortality and for the incidence of safety events. The efficacy of ECLS treatment was not affected by SCAI stage.
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.