ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Sex Differences in Management, Time to Intervention, and In-Hospital Mortality of Acute Myocardial Infarction and Non-Myocardial Infarction Related Cardiogenic Shock.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Limited data are available on sex differences in the time to treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS) with and without acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods: For this retrospective cohort study, we used nationally representative hospital survey data from the National Inpatient Sample (years 2016-2021) to assess sex differences in interventions, time to treatment (within versus after 24 hours of admission), and in-hospital mortality for AMI-CS and non-AMI-CS, adjusting for age, race, income, insurance, comorbidities, and prior cardiac interventions. Results: We identified 1,052,360 weighted CS hospitalizations (60% non-AMI-CS; 40% AMI-CS). Women with CS had significantly lower rates of all interventions. For AMI-CS, women had a higher likelihood of in-hospital mortality after: revascularization (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.15 [95% CI 1.09-1.22]), mechanical circulatory support (MCS) (1.15 [1.08-1.22]), right heart catheterization (RHC) (1.10 [1.02-1.19]) (all p<0.001). Similar trends were found for the non-AMI-CS group. Women with AMI-CS were less likely to receive early (within 24 hours of admission) revascularization (0.93 [0.89-0.96]), MCS (0.76 [0.73-0.80]), or RHC (0.89 [0.84-0.95]) than men; women with non-AMI-CS were less likely to receive early revascularization (0.78 [0.73-0.84]), IABP (0.85 [0.78-0.94]), pLVAD (0.88 [0.77-0.99]) or RHC (0.83 [0.79-0.88]) than men (all p<0.001). For both types of CS, in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between men and women receiving early ECMO, pLVAD, or PCI. Conclusions: Sex disparities in the frequency of treatment of CS persist on a national scale, with women being more likely to die following treatment and less likely to receive early treatment. However, when comparing patients who received early treatment, in-hospital mortality does not differ significantly when men and women are treated equally within 24 hours of admission. Early intervention if clinically indicated could mitigate sex-based differences in CS outcomes and should be made a priority in the management of CS.
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.