Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39076947›Full record

ArticleReviews in cardiovascular medicine2024

Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection with Cardiogenic Shock in the United States.

Chayakrit Krittanawong, Dhrubajyoti Bandyopadhyay, Neelkumar Patel, Yusuf Kamran Qadeer, Neil Sagar Maitra, Zhen Wang, Mahboob Alam, Samin Sharma, Hani Jneid

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors.

Chayakrit KrittanawongCardiology Division, NYU Langone Health and NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, USA.
Dhrubajyoti BandyopadhyayDepartment of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02124, USA.
Neelkumar PatelDepartment of Cardiology, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY 11219, USA.
Yusuf Kamran QadeerSection of Cardiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Neil Sagar MaitraDivision of Cardiology, Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.
Zhen WangRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55902, USA.
Mahboob AlamThe Texas Heart Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Samin SharmaCardiac Catheterization Laboratory of the Cardiovascular Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY 10018, USA.
Hani JneidDivision of Cardiology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Houston, TX 77030, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is defined as a non-traumatic separation of the epicardial coronary artery walls that creates a false lumen. SCAD poses a difficult challenge in management, as decisions regarding revascularization and medical management seem to be tailored to the individual patient. We evaluated and compared outcomes based on cardiogenic shock in patients with SCAD utilizing Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) between January 1, 2016, to December 30, 2020. Methods: We utilized the NRD 2016-2019 to carry out this study. We evaluated demographics (e.g., age, gender), conventional risk factors, comorbidities present on the index admission, and in-hospital outcomes using their specific ICD-10-CM codes. The primary outcomes were In-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission, and the secondary outcome was to compare the complications in SCAD patient with cardiogenic shock (CS) compared to those without CS. Results: We analyzed 2473 individuals with SCAD, 2199 of these individuals did not have cardiogenic shock whereas 274 of these individuals did have cardiogenic shock. When comparing SCAD with cardiogenic shock to SCAD without cardiogenic shock, there was a statistically significant increased odds ratio (OR) for death (propensity matched OR 24.93 (7.49-83.05), use of mechanical circulatory support (propensity matched OR 15.30 (6.87-34.04), ventricular tachycardia (propensity matched OR 4.45 (1.92-10.34), utilization of blood transfusions (propensity matched OR 3.82 (1.86-7.87), acute kidney injury (propensity matched OR 4.02 (1.45-11.13), need for mechanical ventilation (propensity matched OR 8.87 (3.53-22.31), and respiratory failure (propensity matched OR 4.95 (1.83-13.41)))))))). There was no statistically significant difference in 30-day readmission rates between the two groups. Conclusions: SCAD is a unique condition that can lead to many complications. In our analysis, we showed that SCAD associated with cardiogenic shock compared to SCAD not associated with cardiogenic shock results in greater odds of complications including death, use of mechanical circulatory support, need for blood transfusions, ventricular tachycardia, acute kidney injury, use of mechanical ventilation, and respiratory failure. SCAD with cardiogenic shock represents a significantly critical clinical scenario that requires a multi-disciplinary approach to prevent the many potential complications associated with this disease process.

Indexed as

cardiogenic shockSCADshock

Identifiers

PMID39076947
PMCPMC11263818

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.