2021
DOI: 10.1002/ejhf.2274
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Eligibility for mechanical circulatory support devices based on current and past randomised cardiogenic shock trials

Abstract: Mechanical circulatory support devices (MCS) are potentially effective treatments for cardiogenic shock (CS) and are thus evaluated in several randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, it is not clear how enrolment criteria of these RCTs apply to a real-world CS population. This study aimed to shed light on eligibility to these trials.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
29
0
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
29
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Only one third of this real‐world population with CS was eligible for any trial. This was mostly due to the exclusion of CS not secondary to acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but even in a post‐AMI CS scenario only 65.4% of patients were eligible 28 …”
Section: Cardiogenic Shockmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Only one third of this real‐world population with CS was eligible for any trial. This was mostly due to the exclusion of CS not secondary to acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but even in a post‐AMI CS scenario only 65.4% of patients were eligible 28 …”
Section: Cardiogenic Shockmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…26 However, data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) seem not to reflect real-world practice. Schrage et al 28 applied enrolment criteria from the main RCTs about MCS use in CS to 1305 patients with CS admitted to a tertiary care hospital between 2009 and 2019. Only one third of this real-world population with CS was eligible for any trial.…”
Section: Cardiogenic Shockmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Schrage and colleagues illustrate that the major trials of CS are fundamentally challenged by selecting a narrow subset of ACS CS, while the remainder of unstudied patients have a similar and devastatingly high mortality rate. 19 The way forward is to conduct trials involving an 'all-comers' population, and stratify by severity of shock (perhaps by prospectively assigning Society for Cardiac Angiography and Intervention Shock Stage, SCAI). 21 The other key variable is the presence of cardiac arrest, as many patients die of neurological injury and not cardiac dysfunction.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…But will these trials guide clinicians in the care of the patients seen in common practice? This is the hypothesis that Schrage and colleagues address in this issue of the Journal 19 . The authors take the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the three trials mentioned as well as the IABP‐SHOCK II trial and apply these to a 1305 patient contemporary CS registry at a single tertiary medical centre, involving consecutive cases from 2009–2019 20 .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%