Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36086759›Full record

ArticleMedicine2022

Prognosis of patients with cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction: The difference between ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Ming-Lung Tsai, Ming-Jer Hsieh, Chun-Chi Chen, Victor Chien-Chia Wu, Wen-Ching Lan, Yu-Tung Huang, I-Chang Hsieh, Shang-Hung Chang

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ming-Lung TsaiDivision of Cardiology, New Taipei Municipal TuCheng Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Ming-Jer HsiehDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Chun-Chi ChenDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Victor Chien-Chia WuDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Wen-Ching LanCenter for Big Data Analytics and Statistics, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Yu-Tung HuangCenter for Big Data Analytics and Statistics, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
I-Chang HsiehDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Shang-Hung ChangDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-0462-2344

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock has high mortality and remains challenging even in the revascularization era. We conducted this study to understand patients' outcomes. We retrospectively analyzed electronic medical records data from 1175 patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock that developed within 3 days of admission to a multicenter medical care system between January 1, 2000, and July 31, 2018. Patients with AMI were classified into the ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) group or the non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI) group. The short-term and 1-year mortality and adverse events after index admission were analyzed via logistic regression and a Cox proportional hazards model. When compared with NSTEMI, patients with STEMI tended to be younger (65.68 ± 14.05 years vs 70.70 ± 12.99 years, P < .001), men (73.29% vs 60.87%, P < .001), and have fewer underlying chronic diseases. Short-term mortality at index hospitalization was 14.83% in the STEMI group and 21.30% in the NSTEMI group; long-term mortality was 17.06% for the STEMI group and 24.13% for the NSTEMI group. No difference was observed between the 2 groups for patients who developed a cerebral vascular accident during the admission period. However, the major and gastrointestinal bleeding rates were higher in the STEMI group (2.66% vs 0.22%, P = .014; 3.36% vs 0.22%, P = .007, respectively). Age and respiratory failure were the most significant risk factors for short-term mortality. Revascularization may be beneficial for the short-term outcome but did not reach significance in multivariable analysis. In patients with AMI with cardiogenic shock, NSTEMI was associated with a significantly higher mortality rate in short-term results.

Indexed as

Myocardial InfarctionNon-ST Elevated Myocardial InfarctionST Elevation Myocardial InfarctionHospital MortalityHumansMalePrognosisRetrospective StudiesShock, Cardiogenic

Identifiers

PMID36086759
PMCPMC10980438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.