ArticleActa Cardiologica Sinica2020
Application and Comparison of Different Prognostic Scoring Systems in Patients Who Underwent Cardiologist-Managed Percutaneous Cardiopulmonary Support.
Article in Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the prognosis among in-hospital survivors of cardiogenic shock based on etiology: AMI and Non-AMI.Annals of intensive care · 2024Article
- Cardiogenic shock in Taiwan from 2003 to 2017 (CSiT-15 study).Critical care (London, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTemporary mechanical support, including percutaneous cardiopulmonary support (PCPS), is crucial for reversing patients' compromised hemodynamic function. Knowledge about whether cardiologists can directly manage patients receiving PCPS and about the predictive values of different prognostic scores is insufficient.
methodsWe examined the data and in-hospital mortality of 45 eligible patients receiving cardiologist-managed PCPS from July 2012 to January 2019 in our institute. We compared different prognostic scores [namely Survival After Veno-arterial ECMO (SAVE), modified SAVE, prEdictioN of Cardiogenic shock OUtcome foR acute myocardial infarction patients salvaGed by VA-ECMO (ENCOURAGE), and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores] through area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis.
resultsThe patients' mean age was 64.3 ± 11.3 years, and 71.1% were men. The overall in-hospital survival rate was 35.6%. Compared to survivors, nonsurvivors were more likely to have an ischemic etiology, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and higher lactate levels. Survivors had higher SAVE (-5.9 vs. -11.4) and modified SAVE (4.2 vs. -7.1) scores than nonsurvivors (both p = 0.001), but SOFA (9.7 vs. 10.3) and ENCOURAGE (24.8 vs. 26.8) scores were similar (both p > 0.1). In multivariate models, only modified SAVE score remained statistically significant (hazard ratio: 0.96, 95% confidence interval: 0.93-1.00; p = 0.047). Modified SAVE score showed the best risk discrimination (AUC = 0.78).
conclusionsEstablishing regular and continual training protocols can enable cardiologists to perform emergency PCPS (without on-site surgery) and daily care for patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. The modified SAVE score facilitates risk stratification and future decision-making processes.
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.