ArticleESC heart failure2020
Pulmonary artery catheter use in acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 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
38 citing papers in PubMed, 74 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiogenic Shock Detection Using Electronic Medical Records: A Review and Blueprint for Clinical Implementation and Future Research.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Review
- Use of a Pulmonary Artery Catheter in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Circulation reports · 2025Article
- Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring in Acute Heart Failure and Cardiogenic Shock.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Advanced Markers for Hemodynamic Monitoring in Cardiogenic Shock and End-Stage Heart Failure: A Mini Review.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Sex Disparities in Cardiogenic Shock: Risk Factors, Treatment Intensity, and Mortality in a Single Latin American Country.Global heart · 2025Article
- The Price We Pay for Progression in Shock Care: Economic Burden, Accessibility, and Adoption of Shock-Teams and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
- Article
- Characteristics of pulmonary artery catheter use in multicenter ICUs in Japan and the association with mortality: a multicenter cohort study using the Japanese Intensive care PAtient Database.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Observational
- Review
- Association of pulmonary artery catheter with in-hospital outcomes after cardiac surgery in the United States: National Inpatient Sample 1999-2019.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Prevention and management of critical care complications in cardiogenic shock: a narrative review.Journal of intensive care · 2023Review
- Effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheter monitoring for patients with cardiogenic shock of various causes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- Machine Learning Approaches for Phenotyping in Cardiogenic Shock and Critical Illness: Part 2 of 2.JACC. Advances · 2022Review
- Hemodynamic-based Assessment and Management of Cardiogenic Shock.US cardiology · 2022Review
- A Clinical Update on Vasoactive Medication in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock.Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology · 2022Review
- Pulmonary artery catheterization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: A review of contemporary literature.World journal of cardiology · 2021Review
- Creating an impact, not an impression: ESC Heart Failure in its seventh year.ESC heart failure · 2021Article
- Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring in Cardiogenic Shock Is Associated With Lower In-Hospital Mortality.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
- Right Heart Catheterization in Cardiogenic Shock Is Associated With Improved Outcomes: Insights From the Nationwide Readmissions Database.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
- Body Mass Index and In-Hospital Management and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe aim of this study is to evaluate the contemporary use of a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) in acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). METHODS AND
resultsA retrospective cohort of AMI-CS admissions using the National Inpatient Sample (2000-2014) was identified. Admissions with concomitant cardiac surgery or non-AMI aetiology for cardiogenic shock were excluded. The outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality, resource utilization, and temporal trends in cohorts with and without PAC use. In the non-PAC cohort, the use and outcomes of right heart catheterization was evaluated. Multivariable regression and propensity matching was used to adjust for confounding. During 2000-2014, 364 001 admissions with AMI-CS were included. PAC was used in 8.1% with a 75% decrease during over the study period (13.9% to 5.4%). Greater proportion of admissions to urban teaching hospitals received PACs (9.5%) compared with urban non-teaching (7.1%) and rural hospitals (5.4%); P < 0.001. Younger age, male sex, white race, higher comorbidity, noncardiac organ failure, use of mechanical circulatory support, and noncardiac support were independent predictors of PAC use. The PAC cohort had higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.07 [95% confidence interval 1.04-1.10]), longer length of stay (10.9 ± 10.9 vs. 8.2 ± 9.3 days), higher hospitalization costs ($128 247 ± 138 181 vs. $96 509 ± 116 060), and lesser discharges to home (36.3% vs. 46.4%) (all P < 0.001). In 6200 propensity-matched pairs, in-hospital mortality was comparable between the two cohorts (odds ratio 1.01 [95% confidence interval 0.94-1.08]). Right heart catheterization was used in 12.5% of non-PAC admissions and was a marker of greater severity but did not indicate worse outcomes.
conclusionsIn AMI-CS, there was a 75% decrease in PAC use between 2000 and 2014. Admissions receiving a PAC were a higher risk cohort with worse clinical outcomes.
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.