Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37288128›Full record

ArticleStructural heart : the journal of the Heart Team2022

Comparison of Risk Models in the Prediction of 30-Day Mortality in Acute Myocardial Infarction-Associated Cardiogenic Shock.

Lauren S Ranard, Kenneth Guber, Justin Fried, Koji Takeda, Yuji Kaku, Dimitrios Karmpaliotis, Gabriel Sayer, Leroy Rabbani, Daniel Burkhoff, Nir Uriel and 2 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Predictors of short-term mortality in cardiogenic shock: insights from an Egyptian multicenter registry.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lauren S RanardDepartment of Cardiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Kenneth GuberDepartment of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Justin FriedDepartment of Cardiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Koji TakedaDepartment of Cardiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Yuji KakuDepartment of Cardiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Dimitrios KarmpaliotisDepartment of Cardiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Gabriel SayerDepartment of Cardiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Leroy RabbaniDepartment of Cardiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Daniel BurkhoffCardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York, USA.
Nir UrielDepartment of Cardiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Ajay J KirtaneDepartment of Cardiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Amirali MasoumiDepartment of Cardiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Columbia University Irving Medical Center · USCardiovascular Research Foundation · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: There are numerous risk-prediction models applied to acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) patients to determine a more accurate prognosis and to assist in patient triage. There is wide heterogeneity among the risk models including the nature of predictors evaluated and their specific outcome measures. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the performance of 20 risk-prediction models in AMI-CS patients. Methods: Patients included in our analysis were admitted to a tertiary care cardiac intensive care unit with AMI-CS. Twenty risk-prediction models were computed utilizing vitals assessments, laboratory investigations, hemodynamic markers, and vasopressor, inotropic and mechanical circulatory support available from within the first 24 ​hours of presentation. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to assess the prediction of 30-day mortality. Calibration was assessed with a Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Results: Seventy patients (median age 63 years, 67% male) were admitted between 2017 and 2021. The models' area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.49 to 0.79, with the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II score having the most optimal discrimination of 30-day mortality (AUC: 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.90), followed by the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-III score (AUC: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.59-0.84) and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-II score (AUC: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.55-0.80). All 20 risk scores demonstrated adequate calibration ( Conclusions: Among the models tested in a data set of patients admitted with AMI-CS, the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II risk score model demonstrated the highest prognostic accuracy. Further investigations are required to improve the discriminative capabilities of these models or to establish new, more streamlined and accurate methods for mortality prognostication in AMI-CS.

Indexed as

Acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shockCardiogenic shockMortalityRisk calculatorRisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID37288128
PMCPMC10242577
OpenAlexW4307896702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.