ArticleIndian heart journal2018
Predictors of short-term outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock complicating STEMI-A tertiary care center experience.
Article in Indian heart journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and Economic Burden Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for STEMI: A US Real-World Evidence Study.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2026Article
- Risk for shock in people with acute myocardial infarction: a middle-range theory.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2025Article
- ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: Systematic Review of Survival Predictors.American journal of medicine open · 2023Review
- Acute mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock in India.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudying the outcomes in patients presenting with cardiogenic shock with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (CS-STEMI) and undergoing primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may give an insight to the unmet needs in STEMI-care in our region and may help in future recommendations in improving survival. MATERIALS AND METHODOLGY: During the period from January 2001- June 2017, there were 114 patients included in the study. The demographic, clinical and angiographic characteristics were compared between the survivors and non-survivors. All these variables were also compared between two-time frames (Phase 1- January 2001 to June 2007; Phase 2- July 2007 to June 2017).
resultsAmong patients undergoing PCI for STEMI, 7.5% were in cardiogenic shock. In-hospital mortality for the patients included in the study was 53.5%. Total ischemic time (OR=0.99, 0.99-1; p=0.02), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (OR=0.90, 0.82-0.98; p=0.02), need for cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (OR=0.12, 0.24-0.66; p=0.01), and post PCI TIMI flows (OR=0.08, 0.02-0.29; p<0.001) were the significant determinants of in-hospital mortality in the regression analysis. There was no significant change in mortality between the two phases of the study, though there was a reduction in total ischemic and door-to-balloon times, transfer admissions, use of thrombolytics, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, intra-aortic balloon pump, and mechanical ventilation in phase 2.
conclusionPatients presenting in CS-STEMI and undergoing PCI continue to experience high mortality rates, despite improvements in total ischemic times. Further improvement in the systems-of-care are required to bring about reduction in mortality in this high-risk subset.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.