ArticleJournal of the American College of Cardiology2022
Outcomes Associated With Peripheral Artery Disease in Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock.
Article in Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coronary Artery Revascularization in the Older Adult Population: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2025Review
- Clinical Outcomes After Immediate Coronary Angiography in Elderly Versus Younger Patients Suffering from Acute Coronary Syndrome.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Article
- Inpatient Outcomes for Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease Hospitalized for Acute Myocardial Infarction.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Impella Versus VA-ECMO for Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Preliminary Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the Italian Context.Cardiology and therapy · 2025Article
- Predictors and Impact of Cardiogenic Shock in Oldest-Old ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Mechanisms and Therapeutic Strategies for Myocardial Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury in Diabetic States.ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2024Review
- Comparative analysis of cardiogenic shock outcomes in acute myocardial infarction with polyvascular disease.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2024Article
- Nomogram prediction model for the risk of intracranial hemorrhagic transformation after intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Assessment and Management of Older Adults Undergoing PCI, Part 1: AJACC. Advances · 2023Article
- Position Statement on Vascular Access Safety for Percutaneous Devices in AMI Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMortality rates for patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS) remain high despite advances in revascularization strategies and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices.
objectivesThis study sought to elucidate the association between comorbid lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) and outcomes in CS and AMI.
methodsPAD status was defined in Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with CS and AMI from October 1, 2015 to June 30, 2018. Primary outcomes ascertained through December 31, 2018 included in- and out-of-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included bleeding, amputation, stroke, and lower extremity revascularization. Multivariable regression models with adjustment for confounders were used to estimate risk. Subgroup analyses included patients treated with MCS and those who underwent coronary revascularization.
resultsAmong 71,690 patients, 5.9% (N = 4,259) had PAD. Mean age was 77.8 ± 7.9 years, 58.7% were male, and 84.3% were White. Cumulative in-hospital mortality was 47.2%, with greater risk among those with PAD (56.3% vs 46.6% without PAD; adjusted OR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.40-1.59). PAD patients also had greater risk of in-hospital amputation (1.6% vs 0.2%; adjusted OR: 7.0; 95% CI: 5.26-9.37) and out-of-hospital mortality (67.9% vs 40.7%; adjusted HR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.67-1.90). MCS was less frequently utilized in PAD patients (21.5% vs 38.6% without PAD; P < 0.001) and was associated with higher mortality, need for lower extremity revascularization, and amputation risk. Findings were consistent in patients who underwent coronary revascularization.
conclusionsAmong patients presenting with AMI and CS, PAD was associated with worse limb outcomes and survival. In addition to lower MCS utilization rates, those with PAD who received MCS had increased mortality, lower extremity revascularization, and amputation rates.
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.