ArticleEuropean heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care2022
A pragmatic lab-based tool for risk assessment in cardiac critical care: data from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry.
Article in European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Myocarditis-Associated Cardiogenic Shock: A Nationwide Multicenter Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Unsupervised machine learning to identify subphenotypes among cardiac intensive care unit patients with heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2024Article
- Prognostic performance of the IABP-SHOCK II Risk Score among cardiogenic shock subtypes in the critical care cardiology trials network registry.American heart journal · 2024Article
- Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN): a cohort profile.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 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
20 authors at 13 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
aimsContemporary cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) outcomes remain highly heterogeneous. As such, a risk-stratification tool using readily available lab data at time of CICU admission may help inform clinical decision-making. METHODS AND
resultsThe primary derivation cohort included 4352 consecutive CICU admissions across 25 tertiary care CICUs included in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry. Candidate lab indicators were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. An integer risk score incorporating the top independent lab indicators associated with in-hospital mortality was developed. External validation was performed in a separate CICU cohort of 9716 patients from the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA). On multivariable analysis, lower pH [odds ratio (OR) 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72-2.24], higher lactate (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.22-1.62), lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.10-1.45), and lower platelets (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05-1.32) were the top four independent lab indicators associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Incorporated into the CCCTN Lab-Based Risk Score, these four lab indicators identified a 20-fold gradient in mortality risk with very good discrimination (C-index 0.82, 95% CI 0.80-0.84) in the derivation cohort. Validation of the risk score in a separate cohort of 3888 patients from the Registry demonstrated good performance (C-index of 0.82; 95% CI 0.80-0.84). Performance remained consistent in the external validation cohort (C-index 0.79, 95% CI 0.77-0.80). Calibration was very good in both validation cohorts (r = 0.99).
conclusionA simple integer risk score utilizing readily available lab indicators at time of CICU admission may accurately stratify in-hospital mortality risk.
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.