Key result
Routine ECLS shows no benefit over usual care for 1-year mortality in infarct-related cardiogenic shock.
Why the study?
Does early routine extracorporeal life support improve 1-year clinical outcomes in patients with severe infarct-related cardiogenic shock?
RCT
Does early routine extracorporeal life support improve 1-year clinical outcomes in patients with severe infarct-related cardiogenic shock?
Routine use of ECLS in infarct-related cardiogenic shock does not improve mid-term (1-year) mortality or cardiovascular outcomes compared to usual medical care.
Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) has been increasingly used in the treatment of severe infarct-related cardiogenic shock in the last decade. The randomised ECLS-SHOCK trial demonstrated no benefit of early routine use on 30-day all-cause death. We herein present mid-term results. At 1-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, neurologic outcome, recurrent myocardial infarction, repeat revascularisation and rehospitalisations for heart failure between ECLS and usual medical care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Desch et al. (2024) conducted an RCT in severe infarct-related cardiogenic shock. Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) vs. usual medical care was evaluated on all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, neurologic outcome, recurrent myocardial infarction, repeat revascularisation and rehospitalisations for heart failure. Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) showed no significant differences in 1-year all-cause or cardiovascular mortality compared to usual medical care in infarct-related cardiogenic shock.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: