Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36505378›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022

Multivessel vs. culprit vessel-only percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with and without cardiogenic shock.

Jing Wu, Yonggang Wang, Chenguang Li, Honglei Ji, Wenyi Zhao, Qian Tong, Mingyou Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. 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

7 authors.

Jing WuDepartment of Translational Medicine, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Yonggang WangDepartment of Cardiovascular Diseases, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Chenguang LiDepartment of Cardiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Honglei JiDepartment of Cardiovascular Diseases, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Wenyi ZhaoDepartment of Nephrology, Linyi Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Linyi, China.
Qian TongDepartment of Cardiovascular Diseases, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.
Mingyou ZhangDepartment of Cardiovascular Diseases, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Early revascularization of the culprit vessel is the most effective treatment for reducing the risk of mortality from acute STEMI with and without cardiogenic shock. However, the most recent trends and impact of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during the index hospitalization on in-hospital outcomes are unknown. Methods: The National Inpatient Sample was queried from October 2015 to 2019 for hospitalizations with STEMI. The impact of multivessel PCI on in-hospital outcomes of patients with and without cardiogenic shock was evaluated. Results: Of 624,605 STEMI hospitalizations treated with PCI, 12.5% were complicated by cardiogenic shock. Among hospitalizations without cardiogenic shock, 15.7% were treated by multivessel PCI, which declined from 20.8% in 2015 to 13.9% in 2019 ( Conclusion: The frequency of multivessel PCI for STEMI with and without cardiogenic shock is declining. Multivessel PCI is associated with worse in-hospital outcomes for STEMI with cardiogenic shock but not for STEMI without cardiogenic shock.

Indexed as

cardiogenic shockculprit-only PCImultivessel PCINational Inpatient Database (NIS)STEMI

Identifiers

PMID36505378
PMCPMC9731335

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.