Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32163675›Full record

ArticleESC heart failure2020

Prognostic impact of angiographic findings, procedural success, and timing of percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock.

Tuija Sabell, Marek Banaszewski, Johan Lassus, Markku S Nieminen, Heli Tolppanen, Toni Jäntti, Anu Kataja, Mari Hongisto, Lars Køber, Alessandro Sionis and 4 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in ESC heart failure, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01374867 (Pathophysiology and Prognostic Factors in Cardiogenic Shock - CardShock Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 50% 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.

NCT01374867 completednot on this map

Pathophysiology and Prognostic Factors in Cardiogenic Shock - CardShock Study

TypeobservationalSponsorHelsinki University Central HospitalRan2010 to 2013Enrolled220ConditionsCardiogenic Shock
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Tuija SabellHeart and Lung Center, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-2764-7253
Marek BanaszewskiIntensive Cardiac Therapy Clinic, Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland.
Johan LassusHeart and Lung Center, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland.
Markku S NieminenHeart and Lung Center, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland.
Heli TolppanenHeart and Lung Center, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland.
Toni JänttiHeart and Lung Center, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland.
Anu KatajaDepartment of Emergency Medicine and Services, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland.
Mari HongistoDepartment of Emergency Medicine and Services, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland.
Lars KøberDepartment of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Alessandro SionisCardiology Department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, IIB-SantPau, CIBER-CV, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
John ParissisER and Heart Failure Clinic, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Tuukka TarvasmäkiHeart and Lung Center, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland.
Veli-Pekka HarjolaDepartment of Emergency Medicine and Services, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland.
Raija JurkkoHeart and Lung Center, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland.
University of Helsinki · FIInstitute of Cardiology · PLUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ESUniversity General Hospital Attikon · GRUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsUrgent revascularization is the mainstay of treatment in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) related cardiogenic shock (CS). The aim was to investigate the association of angiographic results with 90-day mortality. Procedural complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were also examined. METHODS AND

resultsThis CardShock (NCT01374867) substudy included 158 patients with ACS aetiology and data on coronary angiography and complications during PCI procedure. Survival analysis was conducted with Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression analysis. Median age was 67 ± 11 years, and 77% were men. During 90-day follow-up, 66 (42%) patients died. Patients with one-vessel disease (n = 49) had lower mortality than patients with two-vessel (n = 59) or three-vessel (n = 50) disease (25% vs. 48% vs. 52%, P = 0.011). Successful revascularization [Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Flow 3 post-PCI) was achieved more often in survivors than non-survivors (81% vs. 60%, P = 0.019). The median symptom-to-balloon time was 340 (196-660) minutes, with no difference between survivors and non-survivors. In multivariable mortality analysis, multivessel disease (HR 2.59, CI

conclusionsMultivessel disease is associated with worse survival in ACS-related CS. In patients undergoing PCI, arrhythmic complications were common, but not associated with excess mortality. Successful revascularization of the IRA had positive effect on outcome despite delay from symptom onset.

Indexed as

Acute Coronary SyndromePercutaneous Coronary InterventionAgedCoronary AngiographyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisShock, CardiogenicAcute coronary syndromeCardiogenic shockPercutaneous coronary intervention

Identifiers

PMID32163675
PMCPMC7160464
OpenAlexW3011530494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.