ClearMed
CardiologyRandomized Clinical Trial5 min read

Multimodality Cardiac Imaging Substudy of the DAPT-SHOCK-AMI Randomized Trial: Echocardiographic and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Assessment of Cangrelor versus Crushed Ticagrelor in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction

Whether platelet inhibition at reperfusion affects the microcirculation, the infarct, the noninfarcted myocardium, and ventricular function, and over what time course, has not been examined with serial imaging.

Published in CirculationRandomized controlled trial
5/5 Gold Standard
Evidence Meter · 5/5

Gold-Standard Human Evidence

Backed by randomized controlled human trials or a formal meta-analysis pooling multiple clinical studies.

Source

Clinical Outcome

15.8%

In AMI-CS, serial multimodality imaging characterized microvascular, tissue-level, and functional injury over 1 year.

What Changes?

Cardiology · Randomized Clinical Trial

Current Standard

Conventional cardiology practice relies on standard-of-care monitoring and existing regimens prior to this .

New Finding

Cangrelor was associated with less acute MVO, lower remote native T1, and more complete recovery of LV function than crushed ticagrelor, without a difference in infarct size; these hypothesis-generating findings suggest differences in the microcirculation and non-infarcted myocardial injury but do not establish a treatment mechanism.

3 Key Takeaways

Plain English Summary
  1. 01Core Finding

    The prespecified multimodality imaging substudy of the randomized DAPT-SHOCK-AMI trial (intravenous cangrelor versus crushed oral ticagrelor) addressed this question.

  2. 02Study Evidence

    Tested in a (99 patients) at the randomized clinical trial stage.

  3. 03Practical Meaning

    Controlled trial findings show causal benefit under protocol rules; real-world effectiveness can vary across patients.

What This Means for You

In AMI-CS, serial multimodality imaging characterized microvascular, tissue-level, and functional injury over 1 year. Cangrelor was associated with less acute MVO, lower remote native T1, and more complete recovery of LV function than crushed ticagrelor, without a difference in infarct size; these hypothesis-generating findings suggest differences in the microcirculation and non-infarcted myocardial injury but do not establish a treatment mechanism.

The Discovery

In acute complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), the myocardium sustains a dual injury: of the culprit territory and global hypoperfusion from low cardiac output. Whether platelet inhibition at reperfusion affects the microcirculation, the infarct, the noninfarcted myocardium, and ventricular function, and over what time course, has not been examined with serial imaging. The prespecified multimodality imaging substudy of the randomized DAPT-SHOCK-AMI trial (intravenous cangrelor versus crushed oral ticagrelor) addressed this question. Patients at prespecified imaging sites underwent serial echocardiography (208 enrolled; evaluable examinations in 175, 120, and 99 patients in the acute phase, at 1 month, and at 1 year) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR; 93 enrolled; 73, 68, and 63); 81 patients (40 and 41) underwent both modalities. Blinded core laboratories analyzed all studies. The primary imaging endpoint was microvascular obstruction (MVO) on acute CMR, evaluable in 60 patients; secondary endpoints were infarct size, native T1 of the global, infarcted, and remote myocardium, left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF), global strain (GLS), E/e', and left atrial volume, and their changes. Comparisons between the cangrelor and crushed ticagrelor arms used covariate-adjusted logistic or linear regression; the substudy was not separately powered. The odds of acute MVO were lower with cangrelor (adjusted 0.27 [95% CI 0.08 to 0.98]; P=0.023). Infarct size did not differ between the arms. At 1 year, native T1 of the remote myocardium was lower with cangrelor (adjusted mean 1114 [95% CI 1057 to 1171] versus 1171 [1115 to 1228] ms; P=0.005). Over 1 year, LVEF increased more with cangrelor on echocardiography (37.9% versus 21.7% of the acute value; adjusted P=0.046) and CMR (a clinically meaningful level versus 2.1%; P=0.027), with greater improvement in GLS, lower E/e', and less left atrial enlargement; no parameter differed between the arms at 1 month.

How It Works, Simply

This cardiology research focuses on hemodynamic & lipid pathway modulation. Researchers evaluated it using a randomized controlled trial (99 patients) at the randomized clinical trial stage of medical research.

3 Key Takeaways

Clinical Takeaways
  1. 01Core Finding

    The prespecified multimodality imaging substudy of the randomized DAPT-SHOCK-AMI trial (intravenous cangrelor versus crushed oral ticagrelor) addressed this question.

  2. 02Study Evidence

    Tested in a (99 patients) at the randomized clinical trial stage.

  3. 03Practical Meaning

    Controlled trial findings show causal benefit under protocol rules; real-world effectiveness can vary across patients.

Key Numbers

Quantitative Study Readout
2.1%
Clinical Outcome
99 patients
Study Cohort
01

Biological Mechanism & Study Design

Study Design & Cohort

Randomized controlled trial

Randomized controlled trial (99 patients) · Randomized Clinical Trial

Biological Pathway & Modality

hemodynamic & lipid pathway modulation

Intervention: Multimodality Cardiac Imaging Substudy of the DAPT-SHOCK-AMI Randomized Trial

02

Experimental Findings & Endpoints

In acute complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), the myocardium sustains a dual injury: of the culprit territory and global hypoperfusion from low cardiac output.

Whether platelet inhibition at reperfusion affects the microcirculation, the infarct, the noninfarcted myocardium, and ventricular function, and over what time course, has not been examined with serial imaging. The prespecified multimodality imaging substudy of the randomized DAPT-SHOCK-AMI trial (intravenous cangrelor versus crushed oral ticagrelor) addressed this question.

Patients at prespecified imaging sites underwent serial echocardiography (208 enrolled; evaluable examinations in 175, 120, and 99 patients in the acute phase, at 1 month, and at 1 year) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR; 93 enrolled; 73, 68, and 63); 81 patients (40 and 41) underwent both modalities. Blinded core laboratories analyzed all studies.

The primary imaging endpoint was microvascular obstruction (MVO) on acute CMR, evaluable in 60 patients; secondary endpoints were infarct size, native T1 of the global, infarcted, and remote myocardium, left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF), global strain (GLS), E/e', and left atrial volume, and their changes. Comparisons between the cangrelor and crushed ticagrelor arms used covariate-adjusted logistic or linear regression; the substudy was not separately powered.

The odds of acute MVO were lower with cangrelor (adjusted 0.27 [95% CI 0.08 to 0.98]; P=0.023). Infarct size did not differ between the arms.

At 1 year, native T1 of the remote myocardium was lower with cangrelor (adjusted mean 1114 [95% CI 1057 to 1171] versus 1171 [1115 to 1228] ms; P=0.005). Over 1 year, LVEF increased more with cangrelor on echocardiography (37.9% versus 21.7% of the acute value; adjusted P=0.046) and CMR (a clinically meaningful level versus 2.1%; P=0.027), with greater improvement in GLS, lower E/e', and less left atrial enlargement; no parameter differed between the arms at 1 month.

03

Clinical Translation & Practice Context

In AMI-CS, serial multimodality imaging characterized microvascular, tissue-level, and functional injury over 1 year.

Cangrelor was associated with less acute MVO, lower remote native T1, and more complete recovery of LV function than crushed ticagrelor, without a difference in infarct size; these hypothesis-generating findings suggest differences in the microcirculation and non-infarcted myocardial injury but do not establish a treatment mechanism.

03

The Bottom Line · Clinical Pearl

“In AMI-CS, serial multimodality imaging characterized microvascular, tissue-level, and functional injury over 1 year.”

Published in Circulation · Current Stage: Randomized Clinical Trial

Practical Next Step

Questions for Your Next Doctor Visit

  1. 1Based on my health history, do these cardiology findings (randomized controlled trial (99 patients) in cardiology care) apply to my situation?
  2. 2How do the potential benefits of this approach compare with the standard care I'm currently using?
  3. 3Given the study's key limitation (controlled trial findings show causal benefit under protocol rules; real-world effectiveness can vary across patients.), what risks or follow-up steps should we watch for?
Cardiology · Randomized Clinical Trial
Study Type
Randomized controlled trial

Randomized controlled trial (99 patients)

Evidence Score
5/5 · Gold-Standard Human Evidence
Evidence Meter · 5/5

Gold-Standard Human Evidence

Backed by randomized controlled human trials or a formal meta-analysis pooling multiple clinical studies.

Backed by randomized controlled human trials or a formal meta-analysis pooling multiple clinical studies.

Who It Applies To
Randomized controlled trial (99 patients) in cardiology care
Intervention & Mechanism
Multimodality Cardiac Imaging Substudy of the DAPT-SHOCK-AMI Randomized Trial

Cardiovascular hemodynamic & lipid pathway modulation

Key Limitation
Controlled trial findings show causal benefit under protocol rules; real-world effectiveness can vary across patients.

Translational Stage

LEVEL 1 · Randomized Clinical Trial

Classified as Randomized controlled trial along the clinical evidence continuum

  1. Lab & Discovery
  2. Early Trials
  3. 3Randomized Clinical TrialActive
  4. 4Meta & Practice

Indexed Clinical Entities

Original Publication & AMA Citation

Multimodality Cardiac Imaging Substudy of the DAPT-SHOCK-AMI Randomized Trial: Echocardiographic and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Assessment of Cangrelor versus Crushed Ticagrelor in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction. Circulation. Published 2026;Nov 7. Accessed November 15, 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42998293/

Circulation

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42998293/

Read Original Paper

Continue Reading

Related in Cardiology

View all Cardiology briefings →
CARDIOLOGY · CLINICAL PRACTICE

AI Identifies Hidden Heart Signal for Sudden Death Risk

AI can uncover subtle cardiac risks in routine scans, improving sudden death prediction. This discovery could enable earlier identification of thousands at risk for sudden cardiac death, allowing for timely interventions.

3/5 Observational
Evidence Meter · 3/5

Real-World Observation

Finds meaningful patterns in human health records or cohorts, though observational data cannot prove direct cause.

1 min readScienceDaily
CARDIOLOGY · CLINICAL PRACTICE

Senior Statins: Short-Term Safety, Long-Term Questions

While stopping statins after 70 might initially seem safe for those without prior heart events, the long-term risks suggest a careful discussion with your doctor is essential. For years, the medical community has debated the optimal duration of statin therapy, especially as patients enter advanced age.

3/5 Observational
Evidence Meter · 3/5

Real-World Observation

Finds meaningful patterns in human health records or cohorts, though observational data cannot prove direct cause.

1 min readScienceDaily
Cardiology editorial photograph for Dietary Protein Source Linked to Testosterone Levels in Men
CARDIOLOGY · CLINICAL PRACTICE

Dietary Protein Source Linked to Testosterone Levels in Men

For men, the source of dietary protein—animal (especially dairy) versus plant—appears to correlate with significant differences in circulating testosterone levels, suggesting a potential modifiable lifestyle factor. Currently, dietary interventions specifically differentiating between animal and plant protein for modulating testosterone levels are not a standard component of clinical practice beyond general healthy eating guidelines.

3/5 Observational
Evidence Meter · 3/5

Real-World Observation

Finds meaningful patterns in human health records or cohorts, though observational data cannot prove direct cause.

1 min readScienceDaily