ArticleJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2024
Sex Disparities in the Management, Outcomes, and Transfer of Patients Hospitalized for Cardiogenic Shock.
Article in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex-Based Differences in Management and Outcomes of Patients Admitted or Transferred to Advanced Therapy Centers for Heart Failure.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Sex differences in hospital outcomes of medically-managed type B aortic dissection.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Sex Differences in Management, Time to Intervention, and In-Hospital Mortality of Acute Myocardial Infarction and Non-Myocardial Infarction Related Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Sex Differences in Management, Time to Intervention, and In-Hospital Mortality of Acute Myocardial Infarction and Non-Myocardial Infarction Related Cardiogenic Shock.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Previous studies have shown that women have worse outcomes for cardiogenic shock (CS) than men. Patients who receive care in CS "hubs" have also been shown to have improved outcomes when compared to those treated at "spokes." This study aimed to examine the presence of sex disparities in the outcomes of CS in relation to hospital type. Methods: Hospitalizations of adults with a diagnosis of CS were identified using data from the 2016-2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. CS "hubs" were defined as any centers receiving at least 1 interhospital transfer with CS, while those without such transfers were classified as "spokes." Data were combined across years and multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to evaluate the association of sex with in-hospital mortality, invasive procedures, and transfer to hubs. Results: There were a total of 618,411 CS hospitalizations (62.2% men) with CS related to acute myocardial infarction comprising 15.3 to 17.3% of women hospitalizations and 17.8 to 20.3% of men hospitalizations. In-hospital mortality was lower at hubs (34.5% for direct admissions, 31.6% for transfers) than at spokes (40.3%, all Conclusions: Women with CS were less likely to be treated at a hub or transferred to a hub, had higher in-hospital mortality, and had a lower likelihood of receiving CS-related procedures than men. Further research is needed to understand sex-specific gaps in CS outcomes.
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.