Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32833024›Full record

ArticleJAMA internal medicine2020

Revascularization Practices and Outcomes in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Who Presented With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock in the US, 2009-2018.

Rohan Khera, Eric A Secemsky, Yongfei Wang, Nihar R Desai, Harlan M Krumholz, Thomas M Maddox, Kendrick A Shunk, Salim S Virani, Deepak L Bhatt, Jeptha Curtis and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Complete revascularization in acute myocardial infarction: a clinical review.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in High-Risk Settings.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Rohan KheraSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Eric A SecemskyRichard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Yongfei WangSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Nihar R DesaiSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Harlan M KrumholzSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Thomas M MaddoxDivision of Cardiology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Kendrick A ShunkVeterans Affairs Medical Center, Division of Cardiology, University of California, San Francisco.
Salim S ViraniMichael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Division of Cardiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Deepak L BhattDepartment of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jeptha CurtisSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Robert W YehRichard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Yale University · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USYale New Haven Hospital · USBJC HealthCare · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USMichael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center · USSan Francisco VA Medical Center · US

Funding

Shared Decision-Making to Improve the Health Status of Patients with Claudication: Developing and Implementing Strategies to Individualize Treatment DecisionsK23HL150290 · NHLBI · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI SECEMSKY, ERIC ALEXANDER · 2020 to 2024
$851k
NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL150290
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is associated with high mortality, particularly among patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Recent evidence suggests that use of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may be associated with harm. However, little is known about recent patterns of care and outcomes for this patient population. Objective: To evaluate patterns in the use of multivessel PCI vs culprit-vessel PCI in AMI and cardiogenic shock and outcomes in the US from 2009 to 2018. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study identified all patients in the CathPCI Registry) with AMI and cardiogenic shock who had multivessel coronary artery disease and underwent PCI between July 1, 2009, and March 31, 2018. Exposures: Multivessel or culprit-vessel PCI for AMI and shock. Primary Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Temporal trends and hospital variation in PCI strategies were evaluated, while accounting for differences in case mix using hierarchical models. As a secondary outcome, the association of PCI strategy with postdischarge outcomes was evaluated in the subset of patients who were Medicare beneficiaries. Results: Of 64 301 patients (mean [SD] age, 66.4 [12.5] years; 20 366 [31.7%] female; 54 538 [84.8%] White) with AMI and shock at 1649 US hospitals, 34.9% had primary multivessel PCI. In the subgroup of 48 943 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 31.5% underwent multivessel PCI. Between 2009 and 2018, this percentage increased by 6.7% per year for AMI and 5.8% for STEMI. Overall, multivessel PCI was associated with a greater adjusted risk of in-hospital complications (odds ratio [OR], 1.18; 95% CI, 1.14-1.23) and with greater in-hospital mortality in patients with STEMI (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.16). Among Medicare beneficiaries, multivessel PCI use was not associated with postdischarge 1-year mortality (51.5% vs 49.8%; risk-adjusted OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.04; P = .37). Significant hospital variation was found in the use of multivessel PCI, with a higher multivessel PCI rate for similar patients across hospitals (median OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.33-1.41). Patients at hospitals with high rates of PCI in STEMI use had higher risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (highest vs lowest hospital multivessel PCI quartile: OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.19). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that multivessel PCI was increasingly used as the revascularization strategy in AMI and shock and that hospitals that used multivessel PCI more, especially among patients with STEMI, had worse outcomes. With recent evidence suggesting harm with this strategy, there appears to be an urgent need to change practice and improve outcomes in this high-risk population.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCohort StudiesCoronary VesselsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHospital MortalityHumansMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionPatient DischargePercutaneous Coronary InterventionRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsShock, Cardiogenic

Identifiers

PMID32833024
PMCPMC9377424
OpenAlexW3081021238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.