ArticleCirculation. Heart failure2020
Sex Disparities in the Management and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Young.
Article in Circulation. Heart failure, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 125 citations in OpenAlex.
- SCAI/EAPCI/ACVC Expert Consensus Statement on Cardiogenic Shock in Women.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Guideline
- Sex differences in treatments and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and epidemiological meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Sex disparities in revascularization strategies and mortality in infarct-related cardiogenic shock.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- The Blind Spot in Cardiogenic Shock: Patients Beyond the Current Paradigm.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- CalShock: beyond the shock team, building on California's cardiogenic shock system of care.Heart failure reviews · 2026Article
- Sex differences in patients with advanced heart failure: an analysis of the HELP-HF registry.ESC heart failure · 2026Article
- 'Aint We Women?' A Narrative Review of Intensive and Acute Care Experiences of Black Women Through an Intersectional Lens.Nursing in critical care · 2026Review
- ECMO management in cardiogenic shock-specialized versus non-cardiogenic shock-specialized centers: a registry-based analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Sex-Specific Differences in Management and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock Patients With and Without Ischemic Cardiomyopathy.Korean circulation journal · 2025Article
- Evolution of Critical Care Cardiology: An Update on Structure, Care Delivery, Training, and Research Paradigms: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Comparing the Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock After Myocardial Infarction in Women Across Different Age Groups.Cureus · 2025Article
- SCAI/EAPCI/ACVC Expert Consensus Statement on Cardiogenic Shock in Women: This statement was endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA).Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- Temporary Mechanical Support in Cardiogenic Shock Secondary to Heart Failure: An Evolving Paradigm.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Review
- Sex differences in diagnosis and treatment of heart failure: toward precision medicine.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2025Review
- Sex Disparities in Cardiogenic Shock: Risk Factors, Treatment Intensity, and Mortality in a Single Latin American Country.Global heart · 2025Article
- Article
- Sex-specific prediction of cardiogenic shock after acute coronary syndromes: the SEX-SHOCK score.European heart journal · 2024Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere are limited data on how sex influences the outcomes of acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) in young adults.
methodsA retrospective cohort of AMI-CS admissions aged 18 to 55 years, during 2000 to 2017, was identified using the National Inpatient Sample. Use of coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, mechanical circulatory support and noncardiac interventions was identified. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, use of cardiac interventions, hospitalization costs, and length of stay.
resultsA total 90 648 AMI-CS admissions ≤55 years of age were included, of which 26% were women. Higher rates of CS were noted in men (2.2% in 2000 to 4.8% in 2017) compared with women (2.6% in 2000 to 4.0% in 2017;
conclusionsIn young AMI-CS admissions, women are treated less aggressively and experience higher in-hospital mortality than men.
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.