Impact of thrombolysis, intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation, and their combination in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK?

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000 Sep;36(3 Suppl A):1123-9. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(00)00875-5.


Objectives: We sought to investigate the potential benefit of thrombolytic therapy (TT) and intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) on in-hospital mortality rates of patients enrolled in a prospective, multi-center Registry of acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS).

Background: Retrospective studies suggest that patients suffering from CS due to MI have lower in-hospital mortality rates when IABP support is added to TT. This hypothesis has not heretofore been examined prospectively in a study devoted to CS.

Methods: Of 1,190 patients enrolled at 36 participating centers, 884 patients had CS due to predominant left ventricular (LV) failure. Excluding 26 patients with IABP placed prior to shock onset and 2 patients with incomplete data, 856 patients were evaluated regarding TT and IABP utilization. Treatments, selected by local physicians, fell into four categories: no TT, no IABP (33%; n = 285); IABP only (33%; n = 279); TT only (15%; n = 132); and TT and IABP (19%; n = 160).

Results: Patients in CS treated with TT had a lower in-hospital mortality than those who did not receive TT (54% vs. 64%, p = 0.005), and those selected for IABP had a lower in-hospital mortality than those who did not receive IABP (50% vs. 72%, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, there was a significant difference in in-hospital mortality among the four treatment groups: TT + IABP (47%), IABP only (52%), TT only (63%), no TT, no IABP (77%) (p < 0.0001). Patients receiving early IABP (< or = 6 h after thrombolytic therapy, n = 72) had in-hospital mortality similar to those with late IABP (53% vs. 41%, n = 64, respectively, p = 0.172). Revascularization rates differed among the four groups: no TT, no IABP (18%); IABP only (70%); TT only (20%); TT and IABP (68%, p < 0.0001); this influenced in-hospital mortality significantly (39% with revascularization vs. 78% without revascularization, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions: Treatment of patients in cardiogenic shock due to predominant LV failure with TT, IABP and revascularization by PTCA/CABG was associated with lower in-hospital mortality rates than standard medical therapy in this Registry. For hospitals without revascularization capability, a strategy of early TT and IABP followed by immediate transfer for PTCA or CABG may be appropriate. However, selection bias is evident and further investigation is required.

Publication types

  • Clinical Trial
  • Comparative Study
  • Multicenter Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Cardiac Catheterization
  • Coronary Angiography
  • Electrocardiography
  • Female
  • Fibrinolytic Agents / therapeutic use*
  • Hemodynamics
  • Hospital Mortality
  • Humans
  • Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping*
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Myocardial Infarction / complications
  • Myocardial Infarction / diagnostic imaging
  • Myocardial Infarction / therapy
  • Myocardial Revascularization
  • Prospective Studies
  • Registries*
  • Shock, Cardiogenic / etiology
  • Shock, Cardiogenic / mortality
  • Shock, Cardiogenic / physiopathology
  • Shock, Cardiogenic / therapy*
  • Thrombolytic Therapy*
  • Treatment Outcome


  • Fibrinolytic Agents