Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38022428›Full record

ArticleActa Cardiologica Sinica2023

Renal Impact of Culprit-Only versus Multi-Vessel Revascularization for Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ting-Wei Kao, Ching-Chang Huang, Cheng-Hsuan Tsai, Jui-Yi Chen, Tao-Min Huang, Ting-Tse Lin, Chi-Sheng Hung, Vin-Cent Wu, Hsien-Li Kao, Wen-Jone Chen and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 66% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ting-Wei KaoDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital.
Ching-Chang HuangDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Cardiovascular Center, National Taiwan University Hospital.
Cheng-Hsuan TsaiDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei.
Jui-Yi ChenDivision of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chi Mei Medical Center.
Tao-Min HuangDivision of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University.
Ting-Tse LinDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Cardiovascular Center, National Taiwan University Hospital.
Chi-Sheng HungDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Cardiovascular Center, National Taiwan University Hospital.
Vin-Cent WuDivision of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University.
Hsien-Li KaoDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Cardiovascular Center, National Taiwan University Hospital.
Wen-Jone ChenDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Cardiovascular Center, National Taiwan University Hospital.
Yen-Hung LinDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Cardiovascular Center, National Taiwan University Hospital.
National Taiwan University Hospital · TWChia Nan University of Pharmacy and Science · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The optimal strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated with cardiogenic shock (CS) remains controversial. We aimed to elucidate the renal and cardiovascular impact of culprit-only (C) revascularization versus additional interventions on non-infarct-related arteries. Methods: PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant literature. A total of 96,812 subjects [C-PCI: 69,986; multi-vessel (MV)-PCI: 26,826] in nine studies (one randomized control trial; eight observational cohort studies) were enrolled. Results: MV-PCI was associated with a higher kidney event rate [relative risk (RR): 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12-1.49; p < 0.001]. However, the all-cause mortality rate was comparable both during admission (RR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.94-1.22; p = 0.30) and at one year (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.79-1.16; p = 0.65). MV-PCI was associated with a greater risk of stroke (RR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.08-1.32; p < 0.001) and bleeding events (RR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.07-1.51; p = 0.006), but reduced risk of recurrent MI (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.82-0.97; p = 0.009) and repeat revascularization (RR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.16-0.71; p = 0.004). No increased risk of coronary artery bypass grafting was present (RR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.38-3.17; p = 0.87). Conclusions: C-PCI was associated with a lower rate of renal dysfunction but not all-cause mortality in patients with CS complicating acute MI.

Indexed as

AngiographyCardiogenic shockMeta-analysisMyocardial infarctionPercutaneous coronary revascularization

Identifiers

PMID38022428
PMCPMC10646599
OpenAlexW4389179656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.