[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"cardiogenic-shock-acute\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:cardiogenic-shock-acute":25},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,6,0,[8,49,89,115,144,166],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":15,"eligibilityCriteria":16,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":19,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":4,"briefSummary":23,"conditions":24,"keywords":28,"overallStatus":36,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":37,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":38,"startDateStruct":41,"completionDateStruct":43,"leadSponsor":45,"locationsCount":48},"100642943","cardiovascular-outcomes-registry-in-cardiogenic-shock-cor-shock-100642943",false,"NCT07597291","Cardiovascular Outcomes Registry in Cardiogenic SHOCK (COR-SHOCK)","Cardiovascular Outcomes Registry in Cardiogenic SHOCK","COR-SHOCK","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n-Cardiogenic shock according to the following criteria:\n\nCardiac disorder resulting in hypotension, defined as at least one of the following:\n\n* Systolic blood pressure (SBP) \\\u003C90 mmHg for ≥30 minutes, or\n* Requirement for vasopressors, inotropes, or mechanical circulatory support to maintain SBP ≥90 mmHg\n\nAND\n\nEvidence of tissue hypoperfusion, defined by the presence of at least one of the following:\n\n* Serum lactate \\>2 mmol\u002FL\n* Acute kidney injury and\u002For oliguria\n* Acute hepatic injury\n* Cool or mottled extremities\n* Altered mental status\n\nAND\n\nClinical presentation judged to be primarily attributable to a cardiac etiology.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age \\\u003C 18 years.\n* Other primary etiologies of shock at presentation (e.g., hypovolemic, hemorrhagic, septic, obstructive shock due to acute pulmonary embolism, or anaphylactic shock).\n* Refusal to participate in the study (applicable only to the prospective cohort).","ALL","18 Years",{"count":20,"type":21},800,"ESTIMATED","OBSERVATIONAL","The goal of this observational study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes and management approaches of cardiogenic shock throughout the years in adult patients admitted to a Cardiology Department. The main questions it aims to answer are:\n\n* How have management strategies and clinical outcomes for cardiogenic shock evolved over time?\n* How do clinical, laboratory, and advanced hemodynamic monitoring parameters relate to patient survival and overall prognosis in this population?\n\nResearchers will evaluate clinical data collected from 2017 onwards to see if therapeutic advancements and changes in clinical management over the years have led to improved patient survival and quality of care.\n\nParticipants will:\n\n* Receive standard, routine medical care for cardiogenic shock as determined by their clinical team (no experimental interventions will be introduced).\n* Have their clinical, laboratory, and imaging data collected from hospital electronic records during their stay.\n* Be followed for up to 1 year after hospital admission to evaluate long-term survival and clinical outcomes.",[25,26,27],"Cardiogenic Shock Acute","Cardiogenic Shock","Cardiogenic Shock Post Myocardial Infarction",[26,29,30,31,32,33,34,35],"Shock, Cardiogenic","Hemodynamic Monitoring","Pulmonary Artery Catheterization","Swan-Ganz","Mechanical Circulatory Support","Prognosis","Myocardial Infarction","RECRUITING","2026-06-09",{"date":39,"type":40},"2026-06-11","ACTUAL",{"date":42,"type":40},"2026-06-10",{"date":44,"type":21},"2036-12-31",{"name":46,"class":47},"Hospital de Santa Cruz, Portugal","OTHER",1,{"id":50,"slug":51,"hasResults":11,"nctId":52,"briefTitle":53,"officialTitle":53,"acronym":54,"eligibilityCriteria":55,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":56,"enrollmentInfo":57,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":59,"phases":60,"briefSummary":62,"conditions":63,"keywords":66,"overallStatus":36,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":79,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":80,"startDateStruct":82,"completionDateStruct":84,"leadSponsor":86,"locationsCount":48},"100640694","femart-1-pilot-study-100640694","NCT07596446","FEMART-1 Pilot Study","FEMART-1","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n\\* Non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).\n\nPatients meeting criteria for one of the following clinical scenarios:\n\nGroup A - ECPR-like group:\n\n* Refractory cardiac arrest, including cardiac arrest occurring in the presence of the EMS crew.\n* Age 18-70 years.\n* Effective bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation.\n* Initial rhythm of ventricular fibrillation (VF), pulseless ventricular tachycardia (pVT), or pulseless electrical activity (PEA).\n\nGroup B - post-ROSC group:\n\n* Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after non-traumatic OHCA.\n* Age 18-70 years.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Trauma as the probable primary cause of cardiac arrest.\n* Known severe comorbidity, including:\n\n  * terminal stage of incurable disease (advanced malignancy, advanced dementia, terminal pulmonary disease, terminal heart failure, or palliative care status),\n  * established do-not-resuscitate (DNR) status,\n  * severe pre-existing neurological disability (CPC 3 or CPC 4),\n  * known severe peripheral arterial disease or known occlusion of lower limb arteries,\n  * suspected pulmonary embolism with indication for thrombolytic therapy,\n  * known severe hematological disease associated with severe thrombocytopenia,\n  * morbid obesity.\n* Known or suspected pregnancy.","70 Years",{"count":58,"type":21},60,"INTERVENTIONAL",[61],"NA","The FEMART-1 Pilot Study is focused on evaluating the feasibility, safety, and procedural timing of prehospital femoral arterial sheath placement in patients with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), both during ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation and after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC).\n\nThe primary objective of the study is to enable invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring for targeted and continuous hemodynamic management using vasopressor therapy in the prehospital setting. The study evaluates the feasibility, safety, and procedural performance of invasive arterial monitoring with the aim of improving assessment of the patient's hemodynamic status and enabling more accurate titration of vasopressor support. This approach may reduce episodes of hypotension and decrease the risk of recurrent cardiac arrest while allowing safer transport to specialized cardiac arrest centers.\n\nFemoral arterial access enables more precise monitoring of perfusion pressure, targeted vasopressor titration, and early recognition of impending circulatory collapse. The intervention may contribute to improved early organ perfusion and could be associated with more favorable neurological and overall clinical outcomes after cardiac arrest. In accordance with the ERC Guidelines 2025, which emphasize active hemodynamic optimization after ROSC and acknowledge the potential role of invasive arterial pressure monitoring during ongoing resuscitation, the study evaluates not only feasibility, safety, and procedural timing, but also the potential clinical benefit of continuous hemodynamic-guided management in the prehospital phase, including (1) early identification of hypotension, (2) targeted vasopressor administration, and (3) prevention of re-arrest.\n\nThe study is conducted by the Prague Air Rescue Service Kryštof 01 (Prague Emergency Medical Services) in collaboration with the Central Bohemian Emergency Medical Service, the Second Department of Internal Medicine - Cardiology and Angiology of the General University Hospital in Prague and First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, and the Department of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation and Intensive Care Medicine of the General University Hospital in Prague and First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University.\n\nFEMART-1 is designed as a prospective pilot study without external funding.",[64,65,25],"Sudden Cardiac Arrest","Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA)",[67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,30,77,78],"ECPR","Femoral Arterial Sheath","Femoral Cannulation","Invasive Blood Pressure Monitoring","Prehospital Care","Emergency Medical Services","Resuscitation","Ultrasound-Guided Vascular Access","OHCA","ROSC","Refractory Cardiac Arrest","ALS","2026-05-18",{"date":81,"type":40},"2026-05-20",{"date":83,"type":21},"2026-05-11",{"date":85,"type":21},"2027-03-30",{"name":87,"class":88},"Emergency Medical Service, Prague","OTHER_GOV",{"id":90,"slug":91,"hasResults":11,"nctId":92,"briefTitle":93,"officialTitle":93,"acronym":94,"eligibilityCriteria":95,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":96,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":59,"phases":98,"briefSummary":99,"conditions":100,"keywords":101,"overallStatus":36,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":105,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":106,"startDateStruct":108,"completionDateStruct":110,"leadSponsor":112,"locationsCount":114},"100595034","early-preventive-left-ventricle-unloading-after-va-ecmo-for-refractory-cardiogenic-shock-100595034","NCT07027202","Early Preventive Left Ventricle Unloading After VA-ECMO for Refractory Cardiogenic Shock","EULODIA","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Patient on peripheral femoro-femoral VA ECMO for severe Cardiogenic shock for ≤24h\n2. Initiation of LV unloading possible within 12 hours after randomization.\n3. Consent obtained from a close relative or surrogate. Should such a person be absent, eligible patients will be randomized according to the specifications of emergency consent and the patient will be asked to give his\u002Fher consent for the continuation of the trial when his\u002Fher condition will allow.\n4. Social security registration (AME excluded)\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Age \\\u003C18 years\n2. Pregnancy\n3. Onset of VA-ECMO \\>24 h\n4. Overt pulmonary edema despite optimization of patient's management (titration of ECMO blood flow, inotropes, non-invasive mechanical ventilation with PEEP, diuretics or hemofiltration) requiring urgent LV unloading\n5. ECMO for massive pulmonary embolism or primary RV failure\n6. ECMO after heart transplant\n7. ECMO after LVAD surgery\n8. Resuscitation \\>30 minutes before ECMO (cumulative low-flow time), except if the patient has fully recover consciousness at the time of randomization.\n9. ECMO for refractory cardiac arrest (E-CPR)\n10. Grade 3-4 aortic regurgitation\n11. Mechanical complication of acute myocardial infarction (massive mitral regurgitation, pericardium drainage required, septal ventricular defect)\n12. Patient moribund on the day of randomization\n13. Cerebral deficit with fixed dilated pupils or Irreversible neurological pathology\n14. Other severe concomitant disease with limited life expectancy \\\u003C1 year\n15. Patient has a durable ventricular assist device, an IABP or another temporary mechanical circulatory support (other than ECMO) prior to enrollment.\n16. Severe peripheral artery disease or previous aortic or ilio-femoral surgery precluding IABP or IMPELLA insertion.",{"count":97,"type":21},298,[61],"Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly being used worldwide to treat severe cardiogenic shock. The survival rate of these patients has increased in the last decade, reaching 45-50% for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the most frequent indication of the technique, 50-60% for patients with end-stage dilated cardiomyopathy bridged to heart transplantation or long-term left ventricle assist device (LVAD) surgery, 60-70% for fulminant myocarditis, while it remains lower for post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock (25-35%) and after cardiac arrest (20-40%). However, peripherally inserted VA-ECMO increases left ventricular (LV) afterload, that may lead to poorer clinical outcomes by fostering left ventricular distension, blood stagnation, aortic valve closure, all of which increasing pulmonary congestion and the need for mechanical ventilation and compromising myocardial recovery whenever it is possible, or delaying a bridge to a heart transplantation or long-term left ventricle assist device (LVAD) surgery for patients with end-stage cardiac dysfunction. Several methods have been proposed to reduce afterload after VA-ECMO, including the use of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), balloon atrial septostomy, transseptal left atrial cannula insertion, and use of the left-sided Impella device (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA). The clinical benefits of left ventricular unloading have been suggested by many retrospective case-control studies, including a study by our group that showed that associating an IABP with peripheral VA-ECMO was independently associated with a lower frequency of hydrostatic pulmonary edema under ECMO and more days off mechanical ventilation. More recently, unloading the left ventricle with an IABP was associated with the best survival rate and security profile as compared to no unloading or unloading with a microaxial pump in 12,734 VA-ECMO patients included in the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry. It should also be mentioned that another large registry study showed that the greatest benefit of LV unloading under ECMO was observed with early versus delayed insertion of the unloading device. Lastly, the EARLY-UNLOAD randomized trial in which a transseptal left atrial cannula was used for LV unloading yielded negative results. However, it is important to note that 50% of control patients were rapidly transitioned to LV unloading, thereby compromising the opportunity to demonstrate a mortality benefit. It was also underpowered for the primary outcome of D30 mortality since it included only 116 patients As a result, the recourse to systematic early LV unloading remains highly heterogeneous in clinical practice. For example, , while IABP was EULODIA - Protocol, version 1.0 dated 24\u002F01\u002F2025 Page 6 sur 54 This document is the property of DRCI\u002FAP-HP. All reproduction is strictly prohibited.\n\nVersion no. 4.0 of 31\u002F05\u002F2019 associated to ECMO in \\>70% of the cases in our series of AMI CS patients, only 5.8% of the patients included in the ECMO arm of the recent ECLS-Shock trial received an unloading device, which may have contributed to the neutral result of the study and the only randomized trial to date was underpowered and flawed by a very high rate of early cross-over. Indeed, there is large heterogeneity in current clinical practice, where decisions on whether to add an additional mechanical unloading device during VA-ECMO support vary widely.\n\nTherefore, a new and adequately powered trial comparing systematic early left ventricular unloading to a conventional approach, with rescue left ventricular unloading only in case of clear and urgent indication, i.e. if overt hydrostatic cardiogenic pulmonary edema occurs, is urgently needed. The EULODIA trial is designed to test the hypothesis that early preventive left ventricle unloading with an IABP improves clinical outcomes as compared to conventional care with delayed curative unloading in patients under VA-ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock.",[25],[102,103,104],"ECMO","BPIA","Cardiogenic shock acute","2026-04-08",{"date":107,"type":40},"2026-04-13",{"date":109,"type":40},"2026-03-13",{"date":111,"type":21},"2027-08",{"name":113,"class":47},"Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris",12,{"id":116,"slug":117,"hasResults":11,"nctId":118,"briefTitle":119,"officialTitle":120,"acronym":121,"eligibilityCriteria":122,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":123,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":4,"briefSummary":125,"conditions":126,"keywords":130,"overallStatus":36,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":135,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":136,"startDateStruct":138,"completionDateStruct":140,"leadSponsor":142,"locationsCount":48},"100620203","prognosis-of-patients-with-mixed-cardiogenic-vasoplegic-shock-100620203","NCT07354568","Prognosis of Patients With Mixed Cardiogenic-Vasoplegic Shock","Prognosis of Patients With Mixed Cardiogenic-Vasoplegic Shock: a French Multicenter Cohort","PROMIX","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adult patient (\\>18 years old)\n* Admitted to an intensive care unit for cardiogenic shock, at least SCAI stage C\n* No opposition to data use\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Missing key data, particularly regarding vasopressor doses and outcomes.\n* Pregnant women\n* Non-eligible shock etiologies, including but not limited to:\n* Anaphylactic shock,\n* Isolated hemorrhagic shock,\n* Severe burns or major trauma,\n* Severe acute pancreatitis,\n* Fulminant hepatic failure,\n* Neurogenic shock.\n* Adult under legal protection (guardianship, curatorship, or judicial protection).",{"count":124,"type":21},2500,"Mixed cardiogenic-vasoplegic shock (M-CS) represents a distinct and severe phenotype of cardiogenic shock characterized by concomitant myocardial dysfunction and inappropriate systemic vasodilation. Despite its clinical relevance, the epidemiology, management, and outcomes of M-CS remain poorly defined.\n\nThis retrospective, multicenter, observational registry aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors associated with mixed cardiogenic-vasoplegic shock. The study will analyze clinical, biological, and invasive hemodynamic data routinely collected during patient management for M-CS.\n\nAll included patients will have been admitted for cardiogenic shock, with or without vasoplegia, defined by low cardiac output and, when present, decreased systemic vascular resistance despite adequate filling pressures requiring vasopressor support.\n\nThe primary objective is to describe mortality and organ failure rates, while secondary analyses will identify determinants of adverse outcomes and potential phenotypic subgroups.\n\nThe PROMIX registry will be conducted across three French university hospitals (CHU Amiens-Picardie, CHU Dijon-Bourgogne, and CHU Rouen-Normandie).\n\nThis study is non-interventional, involving only data obtained as part of routine critical care, and will provide the first multicenter overview of this complex and underrecognized form of cardiogenic shock.",[25,127,128,33,129,27],"Bypass, Cardiopulmonary","Septic Shock","Myocardial Infarction (MI)",[131,26,33,132,133,134],"VA-ECMO","Vasopressor","Mixed Cardiogenic Shock","post cardiotomy shock","2026-01-15",{"date":137,"type":40},"2026-01-21",{"date":139,"type":40},"2025-10-20",{"date":141,"type":21},"2027-06-01",{"name":143,"class":47},"Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Amiens",{"id":145,"slug":146,"hasResults":11,"nctId":147,"briefTitle":148,"officialTitle":148,"acronym":149,"eligibilityCriteria":150,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":151,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":4,"briefSummary":153,"conditions":154,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":156,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":157,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":158,"startDateStruct":160,"completionDateStruct":162,"leadSponsor":164,"locationsCount":48},"100617793","hong-kong-cardiogenic-shock-initiative-100617793","NCT07323238","Hong Kong Cardiogenic Shock Initiative","HK CSI","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with the ECG and\u002For biomarker evidence of S-T elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non -S-T elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI)\n* Cardiogenic Shock is defined as presence of at least two of the following\n\n  1. Hypotension (systolic blood pressure ≤ 100 mmHg, or inotropes\u002Fvasopressors to maintain systolic blood pressure ≥ 100 mmHg)\n  2. Evidence of end organ perfusion: elevated serum lactate levels (venous or arterial), cool extremities, oliguria\u002Fanuria\n  3. Hemodynamic criteria represented by cardiac index of \\\u003C2.2 L\u002Fmin\u002Fm² or a cardiac ≤ 0.6 watts\n* Patient is supported with a transvalvular MCS as the initial device (criteria for GCSI-eligible Cohort)\n* Patients undergo PCI within 12 hours of hospital presentation (criteria for GCSI-eligible Cohort)\n* Subject or legally designated representative (LDR) has provided written informed consent. For patients not able to provide consent, data collection will be conducted in retrospective manner with study consent waived.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Unwitnessed out of hospital cardiac arrest or any cardiac arrest in which return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) is not achieved within 20 minutes\n* Patients demonstrate any signs of anoxic brain injury prior to the INDEX PCI (signs of anoxic injury include, posturing, seizures).\n* IABP placed prior to MCS (criteria for GCSI-eligible Cohort)\n* Septic, anaphylactic, hemorrhagic, and neurologic causes of shock\n* Non-ischemic causes of shock\u002Fhypotension (pulmonary embolism, pneumothorax, myocarditis, tamponade, etc.)\n* Active bleeding for which MCS in contraindicated\n* Recent major surgery for which MCS is contraindicated\n* Mechanical complication of AMI (acute ventricular septal defect (VSD) or acute papillary muscle rupture)\n* Known left ventricular thrombus for which MCS in contraindicated (criteria for GCSI-eligible Cohort)\n* Mechanical aortic prosthetic valve (criteria for GCSI-eligible Cohort)\n* Contraindication to intravenous systemic anticoagulation which precludes placement of MCS.\n\nPatients who fulfills all Eligibility Criteria would be recruited and considered GSCI-eligible. AMI-CS patients that did not use MCS, ie. Not fulfiliing both Inclusion Criteria 3, 4, would not be considered screen failure and would still be screened and recruited into HKCSI GCSI-ineligible cohort. Likewise, patients who meet any of Exclusion Criteria will not be GCSI-eligible. Specifically, patients who met exclusion criteria 3, 9, 10 only will be recruited into GCSI-ineligible cohort.",{"count":152,"type":21},320,"Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) is a severe condition with high mortality. Early revascularization and Impella device (Abiomed) support improve outcomes. Observational studies like the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI), Inova-Shock registry, and J-PVAD (Japan registry for percutaneous ventricular assist device) registry emphasize the importance of structured care systems when using mechanical circulatory support (MCS).\n\nFollowing the release of the Danger Shock trial, MCS use is expected to rise. Hospitals will need to monitor practices and work with payers to ensure coverage. Using regional real-world data can assist this process, making the collection and analysis of MCS outcomes essential.\n\nThe NCSI (NCT03677180) aimed to evaluate outcomes with a protocolized approach prioritizing rapid diagnosis, timely MCS delivery, and invasive hemodynamic monitoring via pulmonary artery (PA) catheters. The study involved 406 patients from 2016 to 2020, with an average age of 64 years. Most (67%) had shock, with 85% on vasoactive drugs. Witnessed outof-hospital cardiac arrest occurred in 17%, and in-hospital arrest in 30%. During MCS implantation, 9% were actively resuscitating. Patients mostly in SCAI stage C\u002FD (73%) and stage E (27%) presented with low blood pressure, high lactate, and reduced cardiac power output. About 70% received MCS before PCI, with 90% using PA catheters. Most had STEMI, with median door-to-support and door-to-balloon times of about 78 and 81 minutes. Survival rates were high: 99% procedural, 79% to discharge, 77% at 30 days, and 62% at one year for stage C\u002FD shock. Patients with stage E shock had lower survival. Early use of MCS improved hemodynamics and survival. Further research, like the CERAMICS (Can Escalation Reduce Acute Myocardial Infarction in Cardiogenic Shock) study, aims to refine escalation strategies. The Danger Shock trial highlighted the importance of minimizing complications such as bleeding, limb ischemia, haemolysis, and kidney injury.\n\nCurrently in Hong Kong, prevalence of CS among AMI patients is 5-10%, in-line with global statistics. Among which, 30-day and 1-year mortality of AMI-CS patients in Hong Kong was reported at 29% and 39.5% respectively. Although the use of MCS has been shown in the above overseas studies to improved survival rates of AMI-CS patients, the utilisation rate of MCS among AMI-CS patients in Hong Kong was reported at 36.5% in a previous single-centre study, limited by an array of factors including limited device availability, allocations of resources and patient selection strategy, lack of region-specific evidence and device affordability. Global Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (GCSI) is an ongoing international multicenter registry involving centers from USA, Germany, and Hong Kong, and focus on the outcomes of AMI-CS patients received Impella support. The GCSI is expanding to many other regions. In the Hong Kong Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (HK-CGSI) study we aim to include sites with experience in MCS, all of whom have the capability of MCS escalation and evaluate outcomes across these centers.\n\nThe goal is not only to capture the effects of previously established best practices but gain insights into regional best practices, and together with data from the global cardiogenic shock initiative (GCSI), to better establish the adoption of novel best practices and their effect on complication rates.\n\nIn parallel to GCSI-eligible cohort, i.e. Impella used as the first supporting device for patients with AMI-CS, given the significant portion of patients who could not receive MCS under current limitations in Hong Kong, in the HK-CSI, we will include also the GCSI-ineligible cohort, i.e. AMI-CSI without using Impella or not as the first MCS used, to understand the full picture of clinical outcomes of AMI-CS patients of Hong Kong.\n\nThe HK-CSI study is an observational registry solely and not a treatment study. This single-arm registry captures data generated during procedures which are considered standard of care. Participation in this registry will be performed with waiver of consent of the patient and will have no influence on the type and extent of treatment.",[25,155,26,27,33],"STEMI - ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-01-07",{"date":159,"type":40},"2026-01-09",{"date":161,"type":21},"2026-04-01",{"date":163,"type":21},"2030-10-02",{"name":165,"class":47},"Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong",{"id":167,"slug":168,"hasResults":11,"nctId":169,"briefTitle":170,"officialTitle":171,"acronym":172,"eligibilityCriteria":173,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":174,"enrollmentInfo":175,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":59,"phases":177,"briefSummary":178,"conditions":179,"keywords":183,"overallStatus":156,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":187,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":188,"startDateStruct":190,"completionDateStruct":192,"leadSponsor":193,"locationsCount":48},"100572079","protective-effect-of-eecp-against-negative-inflammatory-response-and-organ-dysfunction-after-cardiovascular-surgery-100572079","NCT06728605","Protective Effect of EECP Against Negative Inflammatory Response and Organ Dysfunction After Cardiovascular Surgery","Protective Effect of Enhanced External Counterpulsation Against Negative Inflammatory Response and Organ Dysfunction After Cardiovascular Surgery","PANDA","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age \\> 18 years;\n* Patients with Stable angina pectoris, unstable angina pectoris, acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, cardiogenic shock;\n* Patients chronic heart failure;\n* Patients are ready to received cardiovascular surgery during this hospital admission.\n* Patients agree to participate in the study and sign an informed consent form.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1\\. Moderate to severe aortic insufficiency; 2. Dissection aneurysm; 3. Significant pulmonary hypertension; 4, A variety of bleeding diseases or bleeding tendencies, or use anticoagulants, INR\\>2.0; 5, active phlebitis, venous thrombosis; 6. There is an infection in the counterpulsating limb; 7. Uncontrolled hyperhypertension (\\>170\u002F110mmHg); 8. Uncontrolled arrhythmias: frequent premature beats, rapid atrial fibrillation, etc.\n\n9\\. Pregnancy.","80 Years",{"count":176,"type":21},400,[61],"Enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) is a noninvasive, non-pharmacologic intervention proven to increase nitric oxide bioavailability in patients with coronary artery disease. Although EECP showed short-term effects in improving coronary flow in patients with coronary slow flow, whether such improvement is durable remains uncertain, and the relationships between such improvement and changes in multiple organ functions as well as inflammatory markers have not been elucidated. The purpose of this study will be to evaluate the potential clinical benefits of EECP on organ function and proinflammatory cytokine concentrations during post-acute sequela of cardiovascular surgery.",[180,181,182,25],"Coronary Heart Disease (CHD)","Cardio-pulmonary Bypass","Congestive Heart Failure Chronic",[184,185,186],"cardiac surgery","cardiopulmonary bypass","cardiogenic shock","2024-12-10",{"date":189,"type":40},"2024-12-11",{"date":191,"type":21},"2025-12-31",{"date":191,"type":21},{"name":194,"class":47},"Nanjing Medical University"]