ArticleCirculation. Heart failure2022
Management and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock in Uninsured Compared With Privately Insured Individuals.
Article in Circulation. Heart failure, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Socioeconomic status and equity among patients with cardiogenic shock.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Impact of Gender, Race, and Insurance Status on Inhospital Management and Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19 and ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (a Nationwide Analysis).The American journal of cardiology · 2023Article
- Outcomes among ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) patients with cardiogenic shock and COVID-19: A nationwide analysis.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2023Article
- Impact of Insurance Status on Clinical Management and Outcomes of Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Findings from the Kuwait Catheterization Laboratory Project Registry.Heart views : the official journal of the Gulf Heart AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere are limited data on uninsured patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). This study sought to compare the management and outcomes of AMI-CS between uninsured and privately insured individuals.
methodsUsing the National Inpatient Sample (2000-2016), a retrospective cohort of adult (≥18 years) uninsured admissions (primary payer-self-pay or no charge) were compared with privately insured individuals. Interhospital transfers were excluded. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, temporal trends in admissions, use of cardiac procedures, do-not-resuscitate status, palliative care referrals, and resource utilization.
resultsOf 402 182 AMI-CS admissions, 21 966 (5.4%) and 93 814 (23.3%) were uninsured and privately insured. Compared with private insured individuals, uninsured admissions were younger, male, from a lower socioeconomic status, had lower comorbidity, higher rates of acute organ failure, ST-segment elevation AMI-CS (77.3% versus 76.4%), and concomitant cardiac arrest (33.8% versus 31.9%; all
conclusionsUninsured individuals have higher in-hospital mortality and lower use of guideline-directed therapies in AMI-CS compared with privately insured individuals.
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.