Evidence Hub

Microaxial Flow Pump Use and Renal Outcomes in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock: A Secondary Analysis of the DanGer Shock Trial

E. Zweck, C. Hassager, R. Beske, L. Jensen, H. Eiskjær, N. Mangner, Amin Polzin, P. C. Schulze et al.

Circulation, 2024

355 participants · 39 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In DanGer Shock (the Danish–German Cardiogenic Shock trial), use of a microaxial flow pump (mAFP) in patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction–related cardiogenic shock led to lower all-cause mortality but higher rates of renal replacement therapy (RRT). In this prespecified analysis, rates and predictors of acute kidney injury (AKI) and RRT were assessed. METHODS: In this international, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial, 355 adult patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction–related cardiogenic shock were randomized to mAFP (n=179) or standard care alone (n=176). AKI was defined according to RIFLE criteria (Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage kidney disease) and assessed using logistic regression models. Use of RRT was assessed accounting for the competing risk of death using Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models. RESULTS: AKI (RIFLE ≥1) was recorded in 110 patients (61%) in the mAFP group and 79 patients (45%) in the control group (P<0.01); RRT was used in 75 (42%) and 47 (27%) patients, respectively (P<0.01). About two-thirds of the RRTs were initiated within the first 24 hours from admission (n=48 [64%] in the mAFP group and n=31 [66%] in the control group). Occurrence of AKI and RRT were associated with higher 180-day mortality in both study arms. At 180 days, all patients alive were free of RRT. mAFP use was associated with higher rates of RRT, even when accounting for competing risk of death (subdistribution…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 355 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free