Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31315497›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2019

Utilization of Palliative Care for Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction: A 15-Year National Perspective on Trends, Disparities, Predictors, and Outcomes.

Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula, Abhiram Prasad, Shannon M Dunlay, Dennis H Murphree, Cory Ingram, Paul S Mueller, Bernard J Gersh, David R Holmes, Gregory W Barsness

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 110 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Reporting of sex as a variable in cardiovascular studies using cultured cells: A systematic review.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Saraschandra VallabhajosyulaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine Mayo Clinic Rochester MN.
Abhiram PrasadDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine Mayo Clinic Rochester MN.
Shannon M DunlayDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine Mayo Clinic Rochester MN.
Dennis H MurphreeDepartment of Health Science Research Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery Mayo Clinic Rochester MN.
Cory IngramDivision of General Internal Medicine Department of Medicine Mayo Clinic Rochester MN.
Paul S MuellerDivision of General Internal Medicine Department of Medicine Mayo Clinic Rochester MN.
Bernard J GershDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine Mayo Clinic Rochester MN.
David R HolmesDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine Mayo Clinic Rochester MN.
Gregory W BarsnessDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine Mayo Clinic Rochester MN.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USMayo Clinic · USWinnMed · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background This study sought to evaluate the 15-year national utilization, trends, predictors, disparities, and outcomes of palliative care services (PCS) use in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Methods and Results A retrospective cohort from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2014 was analyzed using the National Inpatient Sample database. Administrative codes for acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock and PCS were used to identify eligible admissions. The primary outcomes were the frequency, utilization trends, and predictors of PCS. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and resources utilization. Multivariable regression and propensity-matching analyses were used to control for confounding. In this 15-year period, there were 444 253 acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock admissions, of which 4.5% received PCS. The cohort receiving PCS was older, of white race, female sex, and with higher comorbidity and acute organ failure. The PCS cohort received fewer cardiac procedures, but more noncardiac organ support therapies. Older age, female sex, white race, higher comorbidity, higher socioeconomic status, admission to a larger hospital, and admission after 2008 were independent predictors of PCS use. Use of PCS was independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 6.59 [95% CI 6.37-6.83]; P<0.001). The cohort with PCS use had >2-fold higher in-hospital mortality, 12-fold higher use of do-not-resuscitate status, lesser in-hospital resource utilization, and fewer discharges to home. Similar findings were observed in the propensity-matched cohort. Conclusions PCS use in patients with acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock is low, though there is a trend towards increased adoption. There are significant patient and hospital-specific disparities in the utilization of PCS.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesFacilities and Services UtilizationFemaleForecastingHealthcare DisparitiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionPalliative CareRetrospective StudiesShock, CardiogenicTime Factorsacute myocardial infarctioncardiogenic shockcritical careend‐of‐life careoutcomes research

Identifiers

PMID31315497
PMCPMC6761657
OpenAlexW2959774735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.