ArticleJACC. Advances2024
Resource Utilization and Costs Associated With Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Myocardial Infarction: A Population-Based Cohort Study.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variation in Vasoactive Treatment Selection for Cardiogenic Shock: Insights From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN).Circulation. Heart failure · 2026Article
- Palliative and End-of-Life Care Utilization in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Population-Based Study.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic Shock: Clinical Management, Outcomes and Future Directions.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Prognostic Associations of the Naples Score for Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and a Prognostic Meta-Analysis.Cardiology research and practice · 2026Review
- Cardiogenic Shock Management in the Modern Era: A Narrative Review of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- A Proposed Algorithm for the Management of Patients with Cardiogenic Shock Based on Contemporary Knowledge and Gaps in Evidence.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Nationwide trends and disparities in deaths following cardiogenic shock and sepsis in the United States (1999-2023): insights from the CDC WONDER database.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Palliative Care With Tracheostomy or Gastrostomy Tube Use and End-of-Life Quality and Costs Among Patients With Head and Neck Cancer.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2025Article
- In-Hospital Mortality Risk Among Transfers to Cardiac Intensive Care Units.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- Use of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Ventilation as a Support During Coronary Angioplasty in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: Safety and Feasibility.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- AI-Based Predictive Models for Cardiogenic Shock in STEMI: Real-World Data for Early Risk Assessment and Prognostic Insights.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The Price We Pay for Progression in Shock Care: Economic Burden, Accessibility, and Adoption of Shock-Teams and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
- The Price We Pay: Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction.JACC. Advances · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) is associated with significant short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. Despite this, little is known about associated cost. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the health care costs and resource use associated with AMI-CS using administrative data from the province of Ontario, Canada. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with AMI-CS from April 2009 to March 2019. One-year costs following index admission were reported at an individual level. We used generalized linear models to identify factors associated with increased cost. We stratified patients by revascularization strategy to compare cost in each group and examined total cost at a patient level per individual fiscal year. Results: We included 9,789 consecutive patients with AMI-CS across 135 centers in Ontario (mean age 70.5 years; 67.7% male). Mortality in-hospital was 30.2%, and mortality at 2 years was 45.9%. The median inpatient cost per patient was $23,912 (IQR: $12,234-$41,833) with a median total 1-year cost of $37,913 (IQR: $20,113-$66,582). The median 1-year cost was $17,730 (IQR: $9,323-$38,379) for those who died in hospital, and $45,713 (IQR: $29,688-$77,683) for those surviving to discharge, with $12,719 (IQR: $4,262-$35,275) occurring after discharge. Patients who received coronary artery bypass grafting incurred the highest cost among revascularization groups. No significant differences were observed in cost per fiscal year from 2009 to 2019. Conclusions: AMI-CS is associated with significant health care costs, both during the index hospitalization and following discharge. To optimize cost-effectiveness, future therapies should aim to reduce disability in addition to improving mortality.
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.