ArticleCureus2021
In-Hospital Mortality Risk Factor Analysis in Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Inpatient Recipients in the United States.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multivessel vs. culprit vessel-only percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with and without cardiogenic shock.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives The primary goal of our study is to evaluate the mortality rate in inpatient recipients of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MVPCI) and to evaluate the demographic risk factors and medical complications that increase the risk of in-hospital mortality. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS, 2016) and included 127,145 inpatients who received MVPCI as a primary procedure in United States' hospitals. We used a multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for demographic confounders to measure the odds ratio (OR) of association of medical complications and in-hospital mortality risk in MVPCI recipients. Results The in-hospital mortality rate was 2% in MVPCI recipients and was seen majorly in older-age adults (>64 years, 74%) and males (61%). Even though the prevalence of mortality among females was comparatively low, yet in the regression model, they were at a higher risk for in-hospital mortality than males (OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.13-1.37). While comparing ethnicities, in-hospital mortality was prevalent in whites (79%) followed by blacks (9%) and Hispanics (7.5%). Patients who developed cardiogenic shock were at higher odds of in-hospital mortality (OR 9.2; 95% CI 8.27-10.24) followed by respiratory failure (OR 5.9; 95% CI 5.39-6.64) and ventricular fibrillation (OR 3.5; 95% CI 3.18-3.92). Conclusion Accelerated use of MVPCI made it important to study in-hospital mortality risk factors allowing us to devise strategies to improve the utilization and improve the quality of life of these at-risk patients. Despite its effectiveness and comparatively lower mortality profile, aggressive usage of MVPCI is restricted due to the periprocedural complications and morbidity profile of the patients.
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.