Extracorporeal Life Support in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is increasingly used in the treatment of infarct-related cardiogenic shock despite a lack of evidence regarding its effect on mortality. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock for whom early revascularization was planned were randomly assigned to receive early ECLS plus usual medical treatment (ECLS group) or usual medical treatment alone (control group). The primary outcome was death from any cause at 30 days. Safety outcomes included bleeding, stroke, and peripheral vascular complications warranting interventional or surgical therapy. RESULTS: A total of 420 patients underwent randomization, and 417 patients were included in final analyses. At 30 days, death from any cause had occurred in 100 of 209 patients (47.8%) in the ECLS group and in 102 of 208 patients (49.0%) in the control group (relative risk, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.19; P = 0.81). The median duration of mechanical ventilation was 7 days (interquartile range, 4 to 12) in the ECLS group and 5 days (interquartile range, 3 to 9) in the control group (median difference, 1 day; 95% CI, 0 to 2). The safety outcome consisting of moderate or severe bleeding occurred in 23.4% of the patients in the ECLS group and in 9.6% of those in the control group (relative risk, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.50 to 3.95); peripheral vascular complications warranting intervention occurred in 11.0% and 3.8%, respectively (relative risk, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.31 to 6.25). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock with planned early revascularization, the risk of death from any cause at the 30-day follow-up was not lower among the patients who received ECLS therapy than among those who received medical therapy alone. (Funded by the Else Kröner Fresenius Foundation and others; ECLS-SHOCK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03637205.).

Temporary mechanical circulatory support in infarct-related cardiogenic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials with 6-month follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous active mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are being increasingly used in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMICS) despite conflicting evidence regarding their effect on mortality. We aimed to ascertain the effect of early routine active percutaneous MCS versus control treatment on 6-month all-cause mortality in patients with AMICS. METHODS: In this individual patient data meta-analysis, randomised controlled trials of potential interest were identified, without language restriction, by querying the electronic databases MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov, up to Jan 26, 2024. All randomised trials with 6-month mortality data comparing early routine active MCS (directly in the catheterisation laboratory after randomisation) versus control in patients with AMICS were included. The primary outcome was 6-month all-cause mortality in patients with AMICS treated with early routine active percutaneous MCS versus control, with a focus on device type (loading, such as venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [VA-ECMO] vs unloading) and patient selection. Hazard ratios (HRs) of the primary outcome measure were calculated using Cox regression models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024504295. FINDINGS: Nine reports of randomised controlled trials (n=1114 patients) were evaluated in detail. Overall, four randomised controlled trials (n=611 patients) compared VA-ECMO with a control treatment and five randomised controlled trials (n=503 patients) compared left ventricular unloading devices with a control treatment. Two randomised controlled trials also included patients who did not have AMICS, who were excluded (55 patients [44 who were treated with VA-ECMO and 11 who were treated with a left ventricular unloading device]). The median patient age was 65 years (IQR 57-73); 845 (79·9%) of 1058 patients with data were male and 213 (20·1%) were female. No significant benefit of early unselected MCS use on 6-month mortality was noted (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·74-1·03]; p=0·10). No significant differences were observed for left ventricular unloading devices versus control (0·80 [0·62-1·02]; p=0·075), and loading devices also had no effect on mortality (0·93 [0·75-1·17]; p=0·55). Patients with ST-elevation cardiogenic shock without risk of hypoxic brain injury had a reduction in mortality with MCS use (0·77 [0·61-0·97]; p=0·024). Major bleeding (odds ratio 2·64 [95% CI 1·91-3·65]) and vascular complications (4·43 [2·37-8·26]) were more frequent with MCS use than with control. INTERPRETATION: The use of active MCS devices in patients with AMICS did not reduce 6-month mortality (regardless of the device used) and increased major bleeding and vascular complications. However, patients with ST-elevation cardiogenic shock without risk of hypoxic brain injury had a reduction in mortality after MCS use. Therefore, the use of MCS should be restricted to certain patients only. FUNDING: The Heart Center Leipzig at Leipzig University and the Foundation Institut für Herzinfarktforschung.

Routine Extracorporeal Life Support in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock: 1-Year Results of the ECLS-SHOCK Trial.

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.

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used in patients with cardiogenic shock despite the lack of evidence from adequately powered randomised clinical trials. Three trials reported so far were underpowered to detect a survival benefit; we therefore conducted an individual patient-based meta-analysis to assess the effect of VA-ECMO on 30-day death rate. METHODS: Randomised clinical trials comparing early routine use of VA-ECMO versus optimal medical therapy alone in patients presenting with infarct-related cardiogenic shock were identified by searching MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and trial registries until June 12, 2023. Trials were included if at least all-cause death rate 30 days after in-hospital randomisation was reported and trial investigators agreed to collaborate (ie, providing individual patient data). Odds ratios (ORs) as primary outcome measure were pooled using logistic regression models. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023431258). FINDINGS: Four trials (n=567 patients; 284 VA-ECMO, 283 control) were identified and included. Overall, there was no significant reduction of 30-day death rate with the early use of VA-ECMO (OR 0·93; 95% CI 0·66-1·29). Complication rates were higher with VA-ECMO for major bleeding (OR 2·44; 95% CI 1·55-3·84) and peripheral ischaemic vascular complications (OR 3·53; 95% CI 1·70-7·34). Prespecified subgroup analyses were consistent and did not show any benefit for VA-ECMO (pinteraction ≥0·079). INTERPRETATION: VA-ECMO did not reduce 30-day death rate compared with medical therapy alone in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock, and an increase in major bleeding and vascular complications was observed. A careful review of the indication for VA-ECMO in this setting is warranted. FUNDING: Foundation Institut für Herzinfarktforschung.

Angiography after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest without ST-Segment Elevation.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial infarction is a frequent cause of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, the benefits of early coronary angiography and revascularization in resuscitated patients without electrocardiographic evidence of ST-segment elevation are unclear. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 554 patients with successfully resuscitated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of possible coronary origin to undergo either immediate coronary angiography (immediate-angiography group) or initial intensive care assessment with delayed or selective angiography (delayed-angiography group). All the patients had no evidence of ST-segment elevation on postresuscitation electrocardiography. The primary end point was death from any cause at 30 days. Secondary end points included a composite of death from any cause or severe neurologic deficit at 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 530 of 554 patients (95.7%) were included in the primary analysis. At 30 days, 143 of 265 patients (54.0%) in the immediate-angiography group and 122 of 265 patients (46.0%) in the delayed-angiography group had died (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.63; P = 0.06). The composite of death or severe neurologic deficit occurred more frequently in the immediate-angiography group (in 164 of 255 patients [64.3%]) than in the delayed-angiography group (in 138 of 248 patients [55.6%]), for a relative risk of 1.16 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.34). Values for peak troponin release and for the incidence of moderate or severe bleeding, stroke, and renal-replacement therapy were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resuscitated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation, a strategy of performing immediate angiography provided no benefit over a delayed or selective strategy with respect to the 30-day risk of death from any cause. (Funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research; TOMAHAWK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02750462.).

Early coronary angiography in patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To compare early coronary angiography to a delayed or selective approach in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) without ST-segment elevation of possible cardiac cause by means of meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs comparing early with delayed or selective coronary angiography in OHCA patients of possible cardiac origin without ST-segment elevation. The primary endpoint was all-cause short-term mortality (PROSPERO CRD42021271484). RESULTS: The search strategy identified three RCTs enrolling a total of 1167 patients. An early invasive approach was not associated with improved short-term mortality (odds ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.94-1.52; p = 0.15). Further, no significant differences were shown with respect to the risk of severe neurological deficit, the composite of all-cause mortality or severe neurological deficit, need for renal replacement therapy due to acute renal failure, and significant bleeding at short-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: Early coronary angiography in OHCA without ST-segment elevation is not superior compared to a delayed/selective approach.

The novel cystatin C, lactate, interleukin-6, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (CLIP)-based mortality risk score in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) still reaches excessively high mortality rates. This analysis is aimed to develop a new easily applicable biomarker-based risk score. METHODS AND RESULTS: A biomarker-based risk score for 30-day mortality was developed from 458 patients with CS complicating AMI included in the randomized CULPRIT-SHOCK trial. The selection of relevant predictors and the coefficient estimation for the prognostic model were performed by a penalized multivariate logistic regression analysis. Validation was performed internally, internally externally as well as externally in 163 patients with CS included in the randomized IABP-SHOCK II trial. Blood samples were obtained at randomization. The two trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01927549 and NCT00491036), are closed to new participants, and follow-up is completed. Out of 58 candidate variables, the four strongest predictors for 30-day mortality were included in the CLIP score (cystatin C, lactate, interleukin-6, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). The score was well calibrated and yielded high c-statistics of 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-0.86] in internal validation, 0.82 (95% CI 0.75-0.89) in internal-external (temporal) validation, and 0.73 (95% CI 0.65-0.81) in external validation. Notably, it outperformed the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II and IABP-SHOCK II risk score in prognostication (0.83 vs 0.62; P < 0.001 and 0.83 vs. 0.76; P = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A biomarker-only score for 30-day mortality risk stratification in infarct-related CS was developed, extensively validated and calibrated in a prospective cohort of contemporary patients with CS after AMI. The CLIP score outperformed other clinical scores and may be useful as an early decision tool in CS.

Extracorporeal life support in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock - Design and rationale of the ECLS-SHOCK trial.

BACKGROUND: In acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock the use of mechanical circulatory support devices remains controversial and data from randomized clinical trials are very limited. Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) - venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation - provides the strongest hemodynamic support in addition to oxygenation. However, despite increasing use it has not yet been properly investigated in randomized trials. Therefore, a prospective randomized adequately powered clinical trial is warranted. STUDY DESIGN: The ECLS-SHOCK trial is a 420-patient controlled, international, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial. It is designed to compare whether treatment with ECLS in addition to early revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention or alternatively coronary artery bypass grafting and optimal medical treatment is beneficial in comparison to no-ECLS in patients with severe infarct-related cardiogenic shock. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to one of the two treatment arms. The primary efficacy endpoint of ECLS-SHOCK is 30-day mortality. Secondary outcome measures such as hemodynamic, laboratory, and clinical parameters will serve as surrogate endpoints for prognosis. Furthermore, a longer follow-up at 6 and 12 months will be performed including quality of life assessment. Safety endpoints include peripheral ischemic vascular complications, bleeding and stroke. CONCLUSIONS: The ECLS-SHOCK trial will address essential questions of efficacy and safety of ECLS in addition to early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

Catheter-directed therapy in pulmonary embolism.

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening condition with high mortality rates and potential long-term sequelae. Systemic thrombolysis has been virtually the only therapeutic option available for patients with hemodynamic instability over decades. Recently, interventional therapy of PE has gained increasing interest. Multiple devices were developed; these include devices for local thrombolysis, thrombus fragmentation, thrombus aspiration, and combined approaches. However, the available evidence is limited to mostly small, nonrandomized studies. In these studies, safety and efficacy data from patients with intermediate or high-risk PE are promising. However, due to the lack of adequately powered randomized trials, interventional treatment of intermediate or high-risk PE cannot be recommended as standard-of-care. The decision on whether and how to perform a catheter-based intervention should therefore be left to the discretion of the local team, depending on the patients' clinical status, bleeding risk, local expertise, and available devices. The implementation of local multidisciplinary PE response teams is recommended by international guidelines to provide the best possible treatment.

Revascularization in cardiogenic shock.

Approximately 10% of patients with acute myocardial infarction develop cardiogenic shock. Randomized studies have shown a significant improvement in survival with early revascularization, which now represents the most important cornerstone in the treatment of infarct-related cardiogenic shock. In the vast majority of cases, this is achieved by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In cases of complex coronary anatomy or mechanical complications, the Heart Team should be consulted promptly. The randomized CULPRIT-SHOCK study showed a survival advantage for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and a percutaneous revascularization strategy who were treated by culprit-lesion-only PCI compared with immediate multivessel PCI. There are currently few data on anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in cardiogenic shock as well as on active mechanical circulatory support in this setting.

Immediate unselected coronary angiography versus delayed triage in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation: Design and rationale of the TOMAHAWK trial.

Patients experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) without ST-segment elevation are a heterogenic group with a variety of underlying causes. Up to one-third of patients display a significant coronary lesion compatible with myocardial infarction as OHCA trigger. There are no randomized data on patient selection and timing of invasive coronary angiography after admission. METHODS AND RESULTS: The TOMAHAWK trial randomly assigns 558 patients with return of spontaneous circulation after OHCA with no obvious extracardiac origin of cardiac arrest and no ST-segment elevation/left bundle-branch block on postresuscitation electrocardiogram to either immediate coronary angiography or initial intensive care assessment with delayed/selective angiography in a 1:1 ratio. The primary end point is 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary analyses will be performed with respect to initial rhythm, electrocardiographic patterns, myocardial infarction as underlying cause, neurological outcome, as well as clinical and laboratory markers. Clinical follow-up will be performed at 6 and 12 months. Safety end points include bleeding and stroke. CONCLUSION: The TOMAHAWK trial will address the unresolved issue of timing and general indication of angiography after OHCA without ST-segment elevation.

Why VA-ECMO should not be used routinely in AMI-Cardiogenic Shock.

This review summarizes the current evidence regarding efficacy and safety of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in the setting of cardiogenic shock. Currently, there is evidence from 4 randomized controlled trials which all do not support a mortality benefit and increased complication rates by VA-ECMO. Based on current evidence, possible subgroups will be discussed and indications in selected very small patient groups be discussed.

Revascularization Strategy in Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease.

The proportion of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease in individuals experiencing acute coronary syndrome (ACS) varies based on age and ACS subtype. In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) without cardiogenic shock, the prognostic benefit of complete revascularization has been demonstrated by several randomized trials and meta-analyses, leading to a strong guideline recommendation. However, similar data are lacking for ACS without ST-segment elevation (NSTE-ACS). Non-randomized data suggesting a benefit from complete revascularization in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) are prone to selection bias and should be interpreted with caution. A series of large randomized controlled trials have been initiated recently to address these open questions.

Impact of anaemia and iron deficiency on outcomes in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.

AIMS: Anaemia and iron deficiency (ID) are common comorbidities in cardiovascular patients and are associated with a poor clinical status, as well as a worse outcome in patients with heart failure and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Nevertheless, data concerning the impact of anaemia and ID on clinical outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) are scarce. This study aimed to assess the impact of anaemia and ID on clinical outcomes in patients with CS complicating AMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: The presence of anaemia (haemoglobin <13 g/dl in men and <12 g/dl in women) or ID (ferritin <100 ng/ml or transferrin saturation <20%) was determined in patients with CS due to AMI from the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial. Blood samples were collected in the catheterization laboratory during initial percutaneous coronary intervention. Clinical outcomes were compared in four groups of patients having neither anaemia nor ID, against patients with anaemia with or without ID and patients with ID only. A total of 427 CS patients were included in this analysis. Anaemia without ID was diagnosed in 93 (21.7%), anaemia with ID in 54 study participants (12.6%), ID without anaemia in 72 patients (16.8%), whereas in 208 patients neither anaemia nor ID was present (48.9%). CS patients with anaemia without ID were older (73 ± 10 years, p = 0.001), had more frequently a history of arterial hypertension (72.8%, p = 0.01), diabetes mellitus (47.8%, p = 0.001), as well as chronic kidney disease (14.1%, p = 0.004) compared to CS patients in other groups. Anaemic CS patients without ID presence were at higher risk to develop a composite from all-cause death or renal replacement therapy at 30-day follow-up (odds ratio [OR] 3.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.23-6.62, p < 0.001) than CS patients without anaemia/ID. The presence of ID in CS patients, with and without concomitant anaemia, did not increase the risk for the primary outcome (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.64-2.13, p = 0.64; and OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.59-1.73, p = 0.54; respectively) within 30 days of follow-up. In time-to-event Kaplan-Meier analysis, anaemic CS patients without ID had a significantly higher hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.52-2.89, p < 0.001), as well as for death from any cause (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36-2.65, p < 0.001) and renal replacement therapy during 30-day follow-up (HR 2.99, 95% CI 1.69-5.31, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Concomitant anaemia without ID presence in patients with CS at hospital presentation is associated with higher risk for death from any cause or renal replacement therapy and the individual components of this composite endpoint within 30 days after hospitalization. ID has no relevant impact on clinical outcomes in patients with CS.

A Bayesian Reanalysis of the CULPRIT-SHOCK Trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal revascularization strategy for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), cardiogenic shock (CS), and multivessel disease remains controversial. The CULPRIT-SHOCK trial compared culprit-lesion-only versus immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), providing important data but leaving efficacy questions unresolved. To address lingering uncertainties and gain deeper insights, we performed a Bayesian reanalysis of the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial data. METHODS: We conducted a Bayesian re-analysis of the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial data using non-informative, skeptical, and enthusiastic priors. Relative risks (RR) with 95% highest posterior density intervals were calculated. We defined the Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID) as RR <0.84. We performed subgroup analyses for key patient characteristics and assessed secondary outcomes and safety endpoints. Probabilities of benefit, achieving MCID, and harm were computed. Results are presented as median RR with probabilities of effect sizes. RESULTS: Bayesian re-analysis showed a median relative risk of 0.82 (95% HPD: 0.66-1.04) with a non-informative prior, indicating a 95% probability of benefit and 59% probability of achieving MCID. Subgroup analyses revealed potentially stronger effects in males (RR: 0.78, 73% probability of MCID), patients without diabetes (RR: 0.76, 79% probability of MCID), and those with non-anterior STEMI (RR: 0.74, 76% probability of MCID). Secondary outcomes suggested potential benefits in mortality (RR: 0.85) and need for renal replacement therapy (RR: 0.72), but increased risks of recurrent MI (RR: 2.84) and urgent revascularization (RR: 2.88). CONCLUSION: Our Bayesian reanalysis provides intuitive insights by quantifying probabilities of treatment effect sizes, offering further evidence favoring the culprit-lesion-only PCI strategy in AMI patients with cardiogenic shock and multivessel disease. The analysis demonstrates a high probability of overall benefit, with a notable chance of achieving a minimally clinically important difference, particularly in specific subgroups. These findings not only support the consideration of culprit-lesion-only PCI in certain patient populations but also underscore the need for careful risk-benefit assessment. Furthermore, our hypothesis-generating subgroup analyses, which show varying probabilities of achieving MCID, illuminate promising avenues for future targeted investigations in this critical patient population.

German Cardiac Arrest Registry (G-CAR)-results of the pilot phase.

BACKGROUND: In Europe, more than 300,000 persons per year experience out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Despite medical progress, only few patients survive with good neurological outcome. For many issues, evidence from randomized trials is scarce. OHCA often occurs for cardiac causes. Therefore, we established the national, prospective, multicentre German Cardiac Arrest Registry (G-CAR). Herein, we describe the first results of the pilot phase. RESULTS: Over a period of 16 months, 15 centres included 559 consecutive OHCA patients aged ≥ 18 years. The median age of the patients was 66 years (interquartile range 57;75). Layperson resuscitation was performed in 60.5% of all OHCA cases which were not observed by emergency medical services. The initial rhythm was shockable in 46.4%, and 29.1% of patients had ongoing CPR on hospital admission. Main presumed causes of OHCA were acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and/or cardiogenic shock in 54.8%, with ST-elevation myocardial infarction being the most common aetiology (34.6%). In total, 62.9% of the patients underwent coronary angiography; percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was performed in 61.4%. Targeted temperature management was performed in 44.5%. Overall in-hospital mortality was 70.5%, with anoxic brain damage being the main presumed cause of death (38.8%). Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) was performed in 11.0%. In these patients, the in-hospital mortality rate was 85.2%. CONCLUSIONS: G-CAR is a multicentre German registry for adult OHCA patients with a focus on cardiac and interventional treatment aspects. The results of the 16-month pilot phase are shown herein. In parallel with further analyses, scaling up of G-CAR to a national level is envisaged. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05142124.

Do DanGer-SHOCK-like patients benefit from VA-ECMO treatment in infarct-related cardiogenic shock? results of an individual patient data meta-analysis.

AIMS: In a recent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, routine use of veno-arterial ECMO (VA-ECMO) did not improve outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), while a microaxial flow pump reduced mortality in a selected group of patients with AMI-CS in the DanGer-Shock trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individual patient data of patients included in four randomized clinical trials investigating the routine use of VA-ECMO in AMI-CS were centrally analysed. For the purpose of this sub-analysis, DanGer-Shock-like patients were analysed (STEMI only, presumed low likelihood of brain injury). The primary endpoint was 180-day all-cause mortality. A total of 202 patients (106 randomized to VA-ECMO and 96 to control) were included. There were no differences in baseline characteristics, angiographic and interventional features between the two groups. Mortality after 6 months was numerically lower with VA-ECMO between the groups [45% in VA-ECMO group vs. 51% in control group; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56-1.26], while major bleeding (OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.08-4.64) and peripheral vascular complications (OR, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.15-11.56) were increased with the use of VA-ECMO. CONCLUSION: In this exploratory subgroup analysis in patients with CS, STEMI, and a low likelihood of brain injury, there was no mortality benefit with the routine use of VA-ECMO. However, as indicated by the large confidence intervals, the statistical power was limited to draw definite conclusions.