Acute cardiac care & resuscitation
A Bayesian reanalysis of the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial
Authors' conclusion
Our Bayesian reanalysis provides intuitive insights by quantifying probabilities of treatment effect sizes, offering further evidence favouring the culprit lesion-only PCI strategy in AMI patients with CS and multivessel disease.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with acute MI, cardiogenic shock and multivessel disease
- Comparison
- Culprit lesion-only vs immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)
Methodological detailsnon-informative, sceptical and enthusiastic priors, minimal clinically important difference (MCID) defined as RR < 0.84
- Non-informative, sceptical and enthusiastic priors
- MCID defined as RR < 0.84
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Primary endpoint:
- Median RR
- Non-informative prior
Median RR (95% highest posterior density (HPD) 0.66-1.04), non-informative prior
0.82
Probability of benefit
95%
Probability of achieving MCID (RR < 0.84)
59%
Secondary outcomes
Primary endpoint by subgroup
- Males: RR (73% probability of MCID)
- 0.78
- Without diabetes: RR (79% probability of MCID)
- 0.76
- Non-anterior STEMI: RR (76% probability of MCID)
- 0.74
- Hypothesis-generating subgroup analyses
Mortality
- RR
- 0.85
Need for renal replacement therapy
- RR
- 0.72
Safety
Recurrent MI
- RR (increased risk)
- 2.84
Urgent revascularization
- RR (increased risk)
- 2.88
Original publication
A Bayesian reanalysis of the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. Published 12 September 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →