Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a randomized trial, 706 patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock were assigned to either culprit-lesion-only PCI or immediate multivessel PCI. At 1 year, mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups.

In a randomized trial involving patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock, mortality at 6 months was lower with mechanical circulatory support with a microaxial flow pump than with standard care alone.

Among patients who had multivessel coronary disease and acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, the 30-day risk of death or renal-replacement therapy was lower among those who underwent PCI of the culprit lesion only than among those who underwent multivessel PCI.

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is increasingly used in the treatment of infarct-related cardiogenic shock despite a lack of evidence regarding its effect on mortality. In this multicenter trial, patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock for whom early revascularization was planned were randomly assigned to receive early ECLS plus usual medical treatment (ECLS group) or usual medical treatment alone (control group). The primary outcome was death from any cause at 30 days. Safety outcomes included bleeding, stroke, and peripheral vascular complications warranting interventional or surgical therapy. A total of 420 patients underwent randomization, and 417 patients were included in final analyses. At 30 days, death from any cause had occurred in 100 of 209 patients (47.8%) in the ECLS group and in 102 of 208 patients (49.0%) in the control group (relative risk, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.19; P = 0.81). The median duration of mechanical ventilation was 7 days (interquartile range, 4 to 12) in the ECLS group and 5 days (interquartile range, 3 to 9) in the control group (median difference, 1 day; 95% CI, 0 to 2). The safety outcome consisting of moderate or severe bleeding occurred in 23.4% of the patients in the ECLS group and in 9.6% of those in the control group (relative risk, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.50 to 3.95); peripheral vascular complications warranting intervention occurred in 11.0% and 3.8%, respectively (relative risk, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.31 to 6.25). In patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock with planned early revascularization, the risk of death from any cause at the 30-day follow-up was not lower among the patients who received ECLS therapy than among those who received medical therapy alone. (Funded by the Else Kröner Fresenius Foundation and others; ECLS-SHOCK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03637205.).

Purpose We hypothesized that a targeted temperature of 33 °C as compared to that of 36 °C would increase survival and reduce the severity of circulatory shock in patients with shock on admission after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Methods The recently published Target Temperature Management trial (TTM-trial) randomized 939 OHCA patients with no difference in outcome between groups and no difference in mortality at the end of the trial in a predefined subgroup of patients with shock at admission. Shock was defined as a systolic blood pressure of <90 mm Hg for >30 min or the need of supportive measures to maintain a blood pressure ≥90 mmHg and/or clinical signs of end-organ hypoperfusion. In this post hoc analysis reported here, we further analyzed the 139 patients with shock at admission; all had been randomized to receive intervention at 33 °C (TTM33; n  = 71) or 36 °C (TTM36; n  = 68). Primary outcome was 180-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) and 30-day mortality, severity of circulatory shock assessed by mean arterial pressure, serum lactate, fluid balance and the extended Sequential Organ Failure assessment (SOFA) score. Results There was no significance difference between targeted temperature management at 33 °C or 36 °C on 180-day mortality [log-rank test, p  = 0.17, hazard ratio 1.33, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.88–1.98] or ICU mortality (61 vs. 44 %, p  = 0.06; relative risk 1.37, 95 % CI 0.99–1.91). Serum lactate and the extended cardiovascular SOFA score were higher in the TTM33 group ( p  < 0.01). Conclusions We found no benefit in survival or severity of circulatory shock with targeted temperature management at 33 °C as compared to 36 °C in patients with shock on admission after OHCA.

In this trial, patients with systolic heart failure and anemia were assigned to receive either darbepoetin alfa or placebo. At 28 months, there was no significant difference in the rate of death from any cause or hospitalization for worsening heart failure. Anemia is common in patients with heart failure, and patients with both heart failure and anemia have a lower functional capacity, worse quality of life, and higher rates of hospitalization and death 1 – 3 than those without anemia. 4 , 5 The cause of anemia in patients with heart failure is often unknown but may be related to an absolute or relative deficiency of, or resistance to, erythropoietin. Anemia in such patients is associated with impaired renal function, inflammation, and use of renin–angiotensin system blockers. 6 , 7 Small studies have suggested that increasing the hemoglobin level with the use of an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) . . .

In this trial, patients with acute MI and cardiogenic shock who were expected to undergo coronary revascularization were randomly assigned to receive or not to receive intraaortic balloon support. Balloon support had no effect on 30-day mortality. The rate of death among patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction is high even when the patients undergo early revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). 1 – 4 Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation is the most widely used form of mechanical hemodynamic support in this clinical setting. 5 In U.S. and European guidelines, the use of an intraaortic balloon in the treatment of cardiogenic shock is given a class IB and class IC recommendation, respectively. 6 – 8 However, evidence is based mainly on registry data, and there is a lack of adequately powered randomized trials. A meta-analysis that . . .

IntroductionThe high incidence of morbidity and mortality associated with the post-cardiac arrest (CA) period highlights the need for novel therapeutic interventions to improve the outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). The aim of this study is to assess the ability of high-dose intravenous vitamin C (Vit-C) to improve post-CA shock.Methods and analysisThis is a single-blind, open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial, involving 234 OHCA patients with post-CA shock planned to be enrolled in 10 French ICUs. Patients will be randomised to receive standard-of-care (SOC) or SOC with early high-dose intravenous Vit-C administration (200 mg/kg per day, within 6 hours after return of spontaneous circulation, for 3 days). The primary endpoint is the cumulative incidence of vasopressor withdrawal at 72 hours after enrolment, with death considered as a competing event. The main secondary endpoints are neurological outcome, mortality due to refractory shock, vasopressor-free days and organ failure monitored by the sequential organ failure assessment score.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was approved by a French Ethics Committee (EC) on 21 February 2023 (Comité de Protection des Personnes Ile de France 1, Paris, France). Due to the short enrolment period to avoid any delay in treatment, the EC approved the study inclusion before informed consent was obtained. As soon as possible, patient and their relative will be asked for their deferred informed consent. The data from the study will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration numberNCT05817851.

The preferred vasopressor in post-cardiac arrest shock has not been established with robust clinical outcomes data. Our goal was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing rates of in-hospital mortality, refractory shock, and hemodynamic parameters in post-cardiac arrest patients who received either norepinephrine or epinephrine as primary vasopressor support. We conducted a search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL from 2000 to 2022. Included studies were prospective, retrospective, or published abstracts comparing norepinephrine and epinephrine in adults with post-cardiac arrest shock or with cardiogenic shock and extractable post-cardiac arrest data. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. Other outcomes included incidence of arrhythmias or refractory shock. The database search returned 2646 studies. Two studies involving 853 participants were included in the systematic review. The proposed meta-analysis was deferred due to low yield. Crude incidence of in-hospital mortality was numerically higher in the epinephrine group compared with norepinephrine in both studies, but only statistically significant in one. Risk of bias was moderate to severe for in-hospital mortality. Additional outcomes were reported differently between studies, minimizing direct comparison. The vasopressor with the best mortality and hemodynamic outcomes in post-cardiac arrest shock remains unclear. Randomized studies are crucial to remedy this.

In acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock the use of mechanical circulatory support devices remains controversial and data from randomized clinical trials are very limited. Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) - venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation - provides the strongest hemodynamic support in addition to oxygenation. However, despite increasing use it has not yet been properly investigated in randomized trials. Therefore, a prospective randomized adequately powered clinical trial is warranted. The ECLS-SHOCK trial is a 420-patient controlled, international, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial. It is designed to compare whether treatment with ECLS in addition to early revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention or alternatively coronary artery bypass grafting and optimal medical treatment is beneficial in comparison to no-ECLS in patients with severe infarct-related cardiogenic shock. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to one of the two treatment arms. The primary efficacy endpoint of ECLS-SHOCK is 30-day mortality. Secondary outcome measures such as hemodynamic, laboratory, and clinical parameters will serve as surrogate endpoints for prognosis. Furthermore, a longer follow-up at 6 and 12 months will be performed including quality of life assessment. Safety endpoints include peripheral ischemic vascular complications, bleeding and stroke. The ECLS-SHOCK trial will address essential questions of efficacy and safety of ECLS in addition to early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.