Trial reportJournal of the American Heart Association2021
Implications of Myocardial Infarction on Management and Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock.
Trial report in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inotropes, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support for treatment of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2022Pooled it
- Lactate Clearance as a Surrogate for Mortality in Cardiogenic Shock: Insights From the DOREMI Trial.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Trial
- Cardiogenic shock in the course of myocardial infarction: the results of the Shock-POL registry.ESC heart failure · 2026Article
- Milrinone versus dobutamine in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock; a propensity score matched analysis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025Article
- Resource Utilization and Costs Associated With Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Myocardial Infarction: A Population-Based Cohort Study.JACC. Advances · 2024Article
- Management and Outcomes of Type I and Type II Myocardial Infarction in Cardiogenic Shock.CJC open · 2024Article
- Unveiling the microbiota-metabolite-myocardium axis: a novel perspective on cardiovascular health.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Efficacy of Milrinone and Dobutamine in Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Critical care explorations · 2023Review
- State of Shock: Contemporary Vasopressor and Inotrope Use in Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Review
- Fullerene [60] encapsulated water-soluble supramolecular cage for prevention of oxidative stress-induced myocardial injury.Materials today. Bio · 2023Article
- Improved mortality and haemodynamics with milrinone in cardiogenic shock due to acute decompensated heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2023Article
- Inotropic support in cardiogenic shock: who leads the battle, milrinone or dobutamine?Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background The randomized DOREMI (Dobutamine Compared to Milrinone) clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of milrinone and dobutamine in patients with cardiogenic shock. Whether the results remain consistent when stratified by acute myocardial infarction remains unknown. In this substudy, we sought to evaluate differences in clinical management and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) versus non-AMICS. Methods and Results Patients in cardiogenic shock (n=192) were randomized 1:1 to dobutamine or milrinone. The primary composite end point in this subgroup analysis was all-cause in-hospital mortality, cardiac arrest, non-fatal myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, the need for mechanical circulatory support, or initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) at 30-days. Outcomes were evaluated in patients with (n=65) and without (n=127) AMICS. The primary composite end point was significantly higher in AMICS versus non-AMICS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.21; 95% CI, 1.47-3.30;
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.