Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30597584›Full record

ArticleClinical cardiology2019

Association of acute myocardial infarction cardiac arrest patient volume and in-hospital mortality in the United States: Insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Acute Coronary Treatment And Intervention Outcomes Network Registry.

Michael C Kontos, Christopher B Fordyce, Anita Y Chen, Karen Chiswell, Jonathan R Enriquez, James de Lemos, Matthew T Roe

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Cocaethylene cardiotoxicity in emergency department patients with acute drug overdose.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Michael C KontosInternal Medicine (Cardiology Division), Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7195-5195
Christopher B FordyceDivision of Cardiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Anita Y ChenDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
Karen ChiswellDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
Jonathan R EnriquezInternal Medicine (Cardiology Division), University of Missouri- Kansas City and Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri.
James de LemosInternal Medicine (Cardiology Division), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Matthew T RoeDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4049-3458

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about how differences in out of hospital cardiac arrest patient volume affect in-hospital myocardial infarction (MI) mortality. HYPOTHESIS: Hospitals accepting cardiac arrest transfers will have increased hospital MI mortality.

methodsMI patients (ST elevation MI [STEMI] and non-ST elevation MI [NSTEMI]) in the Acute Coronary Treatment Intervention Outcomes Network Registry were included. Hospital variation of cardiac arrest and temporal trend of the proportion of cardiac arrest MI patients were explored. Hospitals were divided into tertiles based on the proportion of cardiac arrest MI patients, and association between in-hospital mortality and hospital tertiles of cardiac arrest was compared using logistic regression adjusting for case mix.

resultsA total of 252 882 patients from 224 hospitals were included, of whom 9682 (3.8%) had cardiac arrest (1.6% of NSTEMI and 7.5% of STEMI patients). The proportion of MI patients who had cardiac arrest admitted to each hospital was relatively low (median 3.7% [25th, 75th percentiles: 3.0%, 4.5%]).with a range of 4.2% to 12.4% in the high-volume tertiles. Unadjusted in-hospital mortality increased with tertile: low 3.8%, intermediate 4.6%, and high 4.7% (P < 0.001); this was no longer significantly different after adjustment (intermediate vs high tertile odds ratio (OR) = 1.02; 95% confidence interval [0.90-1.16], low vs high tertile OR = 0.93 [0.83, 1.05]).

conclusionsThe proportion of MI patients who have cardiac arrest is low. In-hospital mortality among all MI patients did not differ significantly between hospitals that had increased proportions of cardiac arrest MI patients. For most hospitals, overall MI mortality is unlikely to be adversely affected by treating cardiac arrest patients with MI.

Indexed as

RegistriesAgedBritish ColumbiaCause of DeathElectrocardiographyFemaleHeart ArrestHospitalizationHospital MortalityHospitalsHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionPercutaneous Coronary Interventioncardiac arrestmyocardial infarctionoutcomes

Identifiers

PMID30597584
PMCPMC6712341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.