Trial reportESC heart failure2026
Prognostic performance of cardiogenic shock 4 proteins prediction model in infarct-related cardiogenic shock.
Trial report in ESC heart failure, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this analysis was to evaluate the prognostic features of the cardiogenic shock 4 proteins (CS4P) biomarker-based risk score in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) vs non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), with and without cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).The CS4P risk score, validated in cohorts of CS patients with both acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and non-ACS aetiologies, showed advanced predictive metrics compared with other contemporary risk prediction scores for CS. However, there is lack of data concerning the prognostic performance of the CS4P score among CS patients with different forms of ACS.
methodsThe present analysis is a post-hoc analysis of the randomized CULPRIT-SHOCK trial. The primary outcome was a composite of mortality or necessity for renal replacement therapy at 30-day follow-up. Cardiogenic shock 4 proteins markers were determined in serum using ELISA assays.
resultsOf the 412 patients with CS included in this study, 240 (58.3%) patients had STEMI and 172 (41.7%) patients had NSTEMI. In CS patients presenting with STEMI, CS4P score exhibited better prognostication of the primary outcome compared with patients with NSTEMI [area under the curve (AUC) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-0.80 vs AUC 0.69, 95% CI 0.61-0.77; P = .05). Further, CS4P score displayed a higher prognostic performance in STEMI patients who had not undergone CPR prior to enrolment as compared with STEMI patients with preceding CPR (AUC 0.78; 95% CI 0.65-0.84 vs AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.79; P < .001). Cardiogenic shock patients in the highest tertile of the CS4P risk score showed higher mortality rates within 30 days compared to those in the lowest tertile (hazard ratio 1.42, 95% CI 1.11-1.82; P = .005).
conclusionThe CS4P score provides acceptable short-term mortality risk stratification among patients with CS due to acute myocardial infarction. The CS4P prediction model exhibits superior prognostication among CS patients with STEMI as compared to NSTEMI and in STEMI patients without CPR prior to hospital presentation.
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.