ArticleEuropean heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care2025
Development and validation of a risk score in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock.
Article in European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Prognostic value of lactate in patients with cardiogenic shock with and without cardiac arrest.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025Article
- Dynamic Predictive Models of Cardiogenic Shock in STEMI: Focus on Interventional and Critical Care Phases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsMortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMICS) is high, but a widely accepted tool for individual risk assessment is lacking. A reliable prediction model could assist in clinical decision-making, patient selection for clinical trials, and comparison of AMICS populations. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop and externally validate a prediction model for 30-day mortality in AMICS patients. METHODS AND
resultsThis retrospective cohort study included patients from 2017 to 2021 (development cohort) and 2010-2017 (validation cohort). Patients with AMICS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in The Netherlands were identified using the Netherlands Heart Registration. International validation was performed in the Danish Retroshock registry. The main outcome was 30-day mortality. Among 2261 patients, the median age was 67 years [interquartile range (IQR) 58-75], and 1649 (73%) were male. The mortality rate at 30 days was 39% (n = 886). Significant predictors for mortality were: initial lactate, glucose, renal function, haemoglobin, age, blood pressure, heart rate, intubation prior to PCI, intervention in the left main coronary artery, and successful revascularization. The AUC of the initial model was 0.81 (0.79-0.83). The external validation cohort included 1393 patients with 1050 (75%) male and a median age of 67 years (IQR 59-75). The 30-day mortality rate was 49% (n = 680). The model showed good performance on the external validation with an AUC of 0.73 (0.70-0.76).
conclusionA prediction model was developed and externally validated using data from two large national registries. The model demonstrated good performance and is suitable for clinical decision-making and quality purposes in AMICS.
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.