ArticleCJC open2026
Mortality Benefit of Microaxial Flow Pump Use in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock: a Bayesian Reanalysis of the DanGer Shock Trial.
Article in CJC open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Danish-German Cardiogenic Shock (DanGer Shock) trial was the first randomized study to suggest a survival benefit of microaxial flow pump use in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. The frequentist analysis reported borderline significance, leaving uncertainty regarding the robustness and magnitude of benefit. Bayesian methods offer a complementary framework by quantifying the probability of clinically meaningful treatment effects. Methods: We conducted a Bayesian reanalysis of the DanGer Shock trial using aggregate, published 180-day mortality data. Priors reflecting a spectrum of clinical beliefs (from strongly skeptical to strongly enthusiastic) were employed. Posterior probabilities of benefit were estimated for relative risk (RR) thresholds < 1, < 0.90, < 0.80, and < 0.70, and for absolute risk reduction (ARR) thresholds ≥ 2%, ≥ 4%, ≥ 6%, ≥ 8%, ≥ 10%, and ≥ 18%, assuming a baseline 180-day mortality risk of 58.5%. Results: With a minimally informative prior, the median posterior RR was 0.78 (95% credible interval, 0.64-0.95). The posterior probability of any mortality benefit (RR < 1) was 99%, whereas the probability of a large effect (RR < 0.70) was 15%. The posterior median ARR was 12.8% (95% credible interval, 3.0%-21.6%), with a 98% probability of ARR ≥ 2%, but only 17% probability of ARR ≥ 18%. Across all priors, the probability of RR < 1 ranged from 98% to 100%. Conclusions: This Bayesian reanalysis of the DanGer Shock trial supports a high probability that microaxial flow pump use reduces mortality in ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, although large treatment effects appear unlikely. These findings complement the original trial and provide a more intuitive probabilistic interpretation for clinicians.
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.