Related Experiment Videos

Cardiogenic shock: a summary of the randomized SHOCK trial

Venu Menon1, Rupert Fincke

  • 1Division of Cardiology, St. Lukes-Roosevelt Hospital Center, Columbia University, 1111 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10025, USA. vmenon@slrhc.org

Insights

Early revascularization improves long-term survival for acute myocardial infarction patients with cardiogenic shock. The Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial showed benefits for patients under 75.

Area of Science:

  • Cardiology
  • Critical Care Medicine

Background:

  • Cardiogenic shock is a major cause of mortality in acute myocardial infarction patients.
  • Prompt intervention is crucial for improving outcomes in these critically ill individuals.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the efficacy of emergency revascularization versus initial medical stabilization in patients with cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction.

Main Methods:

  • The Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial randomized 302 patients.
  • Interventions included emergency revascularization (within 6 hours) or initial medical stabilization with potential delayed revascularization.
  • Primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality.

Main Results:

  • No significant difference in 30-day mortality between groups (53% vs. 44%, p=0.109).
  • Significant survival benefit observed at 6 and 12 months with early revascularization (50% vs. 37%; p=0.027 and 47% vs. 34%; p=0.025).
  • Benefit was most pronounced in patients younger than 75 years.

Conclusions:

  • Emergency revascularization does not improve short-term survival but offers significant long-term survival benefits for acute myocardial infarction patients with cardiogenic shock.
  • Current guidelines recommend emergency revascularization for patients under 75 with cardiogenic shock based on SHOCK trial findings.

Related Concept Videos