ArticleCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2022
Characteristics and outcomes of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock during COVID-19.
Article in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05800951 (Can Escalation Reduce Acute Myocardial Infarction Mortality in Cardiogenic Shock), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Can Escalation Reduce Acute Myocardial Infarction Mortality in Cardiogenic Shock (CERAMICS Study)
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trends and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States: A National Inpatient Sample Study.Korean circulation journal · 2024Article
- Characteristics and outcomes of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock during COVID-19.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate characteristics and outcomes of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has created challenges in delivering acute cardiovascular care. Quality measures and outcomes of patients presenting with AMICS during COVID-19 in the United States have not been well described.
methodsWe identified 406 patients from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI) with AMICS and divided them into those presenting before (N = 346, 5/9/2016-2/29/2020) and those presenting during the COVID-19 pandemic (N = 60, 3/1/2020-11/10/2020). We compared baseline clinical data, admission characteristics, and outcomes.
resultsThe median age of the cohort was 64 years, and 23.7% of the group was female. There were no significant differences in age, sex, and medical comorbidities between the two groups. Patients presenting during the pandemic were less likely to be Black compared to those presenting prior. Median door to balloon (90 vs. 88 min, p = 0.38), door to support (88 vs. 78 min, p = 0.13), and the onset of shock to support (74 vs. 62 min, p = 0.15) times were not significantly different between the two groups. Patients presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction more often during the COVID-19 period (95.0% vs. 80.0%, p = 0.005). In adjusted logistic regression models, COVID-19 period did not significantly associate with survival to discharge (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-2.19, p = 0.81) or with 1-month survival (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.42-1.61, p = 0.56).
conclusionsCare of patients presenting with AMICS has remained robust among hospitals participating in the NCSI during the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.