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.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intravascular imaging-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in multivessel coronary artery disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies.Intensive care medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Implications of Myocardial Infarction on Management and Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Trial
- A Novel ApoB/ApoA1 Ratio-Integrated Nomogram to Predict Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Construction of a predictive model for in-hospital mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated with cardiogenic shock.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Complete or incomplete revascularization in patients with left main culprit lesion acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a retrospective observational study.Journal of Yeungnam medical science · 2025Article
- Nuciferine reduces vascular leakage and improves cardiac function in acute myocardial infarction by regulating the PI3K/AKT pathway.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Renal Impact of Culprit-Only versus Multi-Vessel Revascularization for Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2023Article
- Complete revascularization in acute myocardial infarction: a clinical review.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2023Review
- PEDF Protects Endothelial Barrier Integrity during Acute Myocardial Infarction via 67LR.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Outcomes of Complex Percutaneous Cardiac Interventions in Women.US cardiology · 2023Review
- Article
- When to Achieve Complete Revascularization in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Outcomes Associated With Peripheral Artery Disease in Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2022Article
- Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in High-Risk Settings.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.