Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 7, 2026

Technical Refinement of a Bilateral Renal Ischemia-Reperfusion Mouse Model for Acute Kidney Injury Research
Published on: November 3, 2023
Mean Arterial Pressure and Mortality in Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock With and Without Cardiac Arrest: A
S Ten Berg1, M Bogerd1, E J Peters1
1Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Insights
This study found no significant difference in short-term mortality for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest (AMICS-CA) patients treated with different mean arterial pressure (MAP) levels. Similar results were observed for AMICS patients without cardiac arrest.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Critical Care Medicine
- Clinical Research
Background:
- Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is a critical condition.
- Cardiac arrest (CA) further complicates AMI with CS, increasing mortality risk.
- Optimizing hemodynamic management, including mean arterial pressure (MAP), is crucial for these patients.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically review and meta-analyze the impact of varying MAP levels on short-term mortality in patients with AMI complicated by CS, with and without CA.
- To compare outcomes between low-MAP and high-MAP management strategies.
Main Methods:
- A comprehensive systematic search of major medical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL) was performed.
- Included studies reported short-term mortality for AMI patients with and without CA across different MAP groups (targeted or achieved).
- Data from 12 studies (4 RCTs, 8 observational) involving 1281 AMICS-CA and 111 AMICS patients without CA were pooled using random-effects models.
Main Results:
- In patients with AMI complicated by CS and CA (AMICS-CA), short-term mortality was similar between low- and high-MAP groups in both RCTs (34.9% vs. 39.4%) and observational data.
- For AMICS patients without CA, mortality also showed no significant difference between low- and high-MAP groups, though this was based on only two observational studies.
- The primary endpoint, short-term mortality, did not significantly differ based on MAP levels in either patient group.
Conclusions:
- The meta-analysis indicates no significant difference in short-term mortality between low- and high-MAP levels for AMICS-CA patients.
- Similarly, no significant mortality difference was observed in AMICS patients without CA, although evidence is limited.
- Heterogeneity in MAP definitions and limited evidence across studies preclude definitive conclusions regarding optimal MAP targets.
Background:
This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of different mean arterial pressure (MAP) levels on short-term mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock with cardiac arrest (AMICS-CA) and without (AMICS without CA).
Methods:
We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (Ebsco), and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Studies that reported outcomes for patients with AMICS with and without CA in at least 2 groups of different MAP levels were eligible, including targeted MAPs in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and achieved average MAPs in observational studies. Authors of the included studies were proactively contacted for additional AMI data. Data were pooled using random-effects models. The primary endpoint was short-term mortality.
Results:
Of 11,269 screened studies, 12 were included in the final analysis (4 RCTs and 8 observational studies), encompassing 1281 patients with AMICS-CA and 111 patients with AMICS without CA. Short-term mortality was similar between low- and high-MAP groups in AMICS-CA in both RCTs (34.9% vs 39.4%, Risk Ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.10) and observational data, as well as in patients with AMICS without CA, although based on just 2 observational studies.
Conclusions:
Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference in short-term mortality between low- and high-MAP levels in patients with AMICS with CA. Similarly, although based on pooled observational data from only 2 studies, no significant difference in mortality was observed in patients with AMICS without CA. Overall, both limited evidence and heterogeneity in low- and high-MAP definitions across studies preclude firm conclusions.
Related Concept Videos
Blood Pressure Imbalances and Circulatory Shock
Blood Pressure: Hypertension and Hypotension
Normal blood pressure is 120/80 mm Hg. Elevated blood pressure is 120-129/under 80 mm Hg. Hypertension, warranting treatment at 130/80 mm Hg, is often asymptomatic and can lead to severe cardiovascular events, aneurysms, peripheral arterial disease, chronic renal disease, or cardiac...
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation IV: Pharmacological Management
Blood Pressure
Measurement of Blood Pressure
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation I: Adult
Introduction Cardiac Emergencies

