Antoine Kimmoun, Connor O'Brien, Vanessa Blumer, Florian A Wenzl, Janine Pöss, Uwe Zeymer, Jacob E Møller, Nadia Aissaoui, Shashank S Sinha, Alain Combes, Naoki Sato, Alessandro Sionis, Sabri Soussi, Susanna Price, Rhonda E Monroe, Rebecca Mathew, Alexandre Mebazaa
{"title":"Optimising trial design for cardiogenic shock: insights from the sixth Critical Care Clinical Trialists Workshop","authors":"Antoine Kimmoun, Connor O'Brien, Vanessa Blumer, Florian A Wenzl, Janine Pöss, Uwe Zeymer, Jacob E Møller, Nadia Aissaoui, Shashank S Sinha, Alain Combes, Naoki Sato, Alessandro Sionis, Sabri Soussi, Susanna Price, Rhonda E Monroe, Rebecca Mathew, Alexandre Mebazaa","doi":"10.1016/s2213-2600(25)00084-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite substantial advancements in the management of cardiogenic shock, mortality rates remain greater than 40%. Trials have shown that increasing survival rates in cardiogenic shock is challenging. Even the most successful trials show 5–15% reductions in mortality, and gains have been restricted to acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock, representing approximately 5% of the population with cardiogenic shock. Trials studying pharmacological strategies in all populations with cardiogenic shock have been consistently neutral or negative. The reasons are complex and include heterogeneity in cardiogenic shock phenotypes, timing of patient inclusion, high prevalence of multiorgan failure and cardiac arrest, and unrealistic estimated treatment effects that restrict sample size with sometimes inadequate funding leading to underpowered trials. In June, 2024, international experts from the fields of cardiology, anaesthesiology, critical care medicine, biostatistics, government regulation of trials, and patient advocacy convened at the sixth Critical Care Clinical Trialists Workshop to reflect on how to improve the design of future randomised clinical trials in cardiogenic shock. This Position Paper summarises the results of discussions regarding what an optimal randomised controlled trial on cardiogenic shock should entail in terms of population selection, primary objectives, statistical analysis, and incorporation of the patient's perspective.","PeriodicalId":51307,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Respiratory Medicine","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":38.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Respiratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/s2213-2600(25)00084-0","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Despite substantial advancements in the management of cardiogenic shock, mortality rates remain greater than 40%. Trials have shown that increasing survival rates in cardiogenic shock is challenging. Even the most successful trials show 5–15% reductions in mortality, and gains have been restricted to acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock, representing approximately 5% of the population with cardiogenic shock. Trials studying pharmacological strategies in all populations with cardiogenic shock have been consistently neutral or negative. The reasons are complex and include heterogeneity in cardiogenic shock phenotypes, timing of patient inclusion, high prevalence of multiorgan failure and cardiac arrest, and unrealistic estimated treatment effects that restrict sample size with sometimes inadequate funding leading to underpowered trials. In June, 2024, international experts from the fields of cardiology, anaesthesiology, critical care medicine, biostatistics, government regulation of trials, and patient advocacy convened at the sixth Critical Care Clinical Trialists Workshop to reflect on how to improve the design of future randomised clinical trials in cardiogenic shock. This Position Paper summarises the results of discussions regarding what an optimal randomised controlled trial on cardiogenic shock should entail in terms of population selection, primary objectives, statistical analysis, and incorporation of the patient's perspective.
期刊介绍:
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine is a renowned journal specializing in respiratory medicine and critical care. Our publication features original research that aims to advocate for change or shed light on clinical practices in the field. Additionally, we provide informative reviews on various topics related to respiratory medicine and critical care, ensuring a comprehensive coverage of the subject.
The journal covers a wide range of topics including but not limited to asthma, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), tobacco control, intensive care medicine, lung cancer, cystic fibrosis, pneumonia, sarcoidosis, sepsis, mesothelioma, sleep medicine, thoracic and reconstructive surgery, tuberculosis, palliative medicine, influenza, pulmonary hypertension, pulmonary vascular disease, and respiratory infections. By encompassing such a broad spectrum of subjects, we strive to address the diverse needs and interests of our readership.