ArticleJACC. Advances2026
Shock Timing in STEMI-CS: Management and Outcomes in a Resource-Limited Setting.
Article in JACC. Advances, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) carries high in-hospital mortality, but evidence from low- and middle-income countries remains limited.
objectivesThe objective of the study was to compare clinical presentation, pharmacological treatment use, and in-hospital outcomes according to shock onset before vs after arrival at a reperfusion center (ARC).
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort analysis with data from RECUIMA, a multicenter registry of patients with STEMI admitted to 4 Cuban hospitals. Patients with cardiogenic shock complicating STEMI were classified as having shock prior to arrival at a reperfusion center (PRC) or ARC. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the association between shock timing and in-hospital mortality.
resultsAmong 4,113 patients with STEMI, 435 (10.6%) developed cardiogenic shock; 134 (30.8%) were PRC and 301 (69.2%) ARC. PRC patients had greater clinical severity, including lower systolic blood pressure and left ventricular ejection fraction, worse renal function, and higher Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events scores (all P < 0.01). Inpatient best available medical therapy was less frequent in PRC than ARC patients (32.8% vs 51.8%; relative risk: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.49-0.83; P < 0.001). Unadjusted mortality was higher in PRC patients (50.0% vs 38.2%; relative risk: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.05-1.63; P = 0.021). In the multivariable logistic regression model, shock timing was not statistically significantly associated with mortality (OR: 1.65; 95% CI: 0.86-3.18; P = 0.13).
conclusionsPRC patients presented with greater severity, received less inpatient best available medical therapy, and had higher unadjusted mortality. However, in the multivariable logistic regression model, shock timing was not statistically significantly associated with 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.