ArticleAnnals of intensive care2024
Comparison of the prognosis among in-hospital survivors of cardiogenic shock based on etiology: AMI and Non-AMI.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07266675 (Post-Acute Phase of Cardiogenic Shock), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Post-Acute Phase of Cardiogenic Shock (PACS) Registry
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Levosimendan in Cardiogenic Shock: A Review of Mechanisms, Clinical Evidence, and Therapeutic Use.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Cardiogenic Shock Due to Progressive Heart Failure-Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes Compared to Other Aetiologies.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Beta-Blockers as an Immunologic and Autonomic Manipulator in Critically Ill Patients: A Review of the Recent Literature.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent data on post-discharge mortality and rehospitalization is still insufficient among in-hospital survivors of cardiogenic shock (CS), including acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and non-AMI survivors.
methodsPatients with CS who survived after hospital discharge were selected from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Each patient was followed up at 3-year intervals. Mortality and rehospitalization were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models.
resultsThere were 16,582 eligible patients. Of these, 42.4% and 57.6% were AMI-CS and non-AMI-CS survivors, respectively. The overall mortality and rehospitalization rates were considerably high, with reports of 7.0% and 22.1% at 30 days, 24.5% and 58.2% at 1 year, and 38.9% and 73.0% at 3 years, respectively, among in-hospital CS survivors. Cardiovascular (CV) problems caused approximately 40% mortality and 60% rehospitalization. Overall, the non-AMI-CS group had a higher mortality burden than the AMI-CS group owing to older age and a higher prevalence of comorbidities. In multivariable models, the non-AMI-CS group exhibited a lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 0.78) and CV mortality (aHR 0.65, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.78) compared to the AMI-CS group. However, these risks diminished and even reversed after one year (aHR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.25 for all-cause mortality; aHR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.49 for CV mortality).This reversal was not observed in all-cause and CV rehospitalization. For rehospitalization, AMI-CS was associated with the risk of CV rehospitalization in the entire observation period (aHR:0.80, 95% CI:0.76-0.84).
conclusionsIn-hospital AMI-CS survivors had an increased risk of CV rehospitalization and 30-day mortality, whereas those with non-AMI-CS had a greater mortality risk after 1-year follow-up.
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.