ArticleThe American journal of cardiology2025
Clinical Outcomes for Postinfarct Ventricular Septal Defect Repair in a Large State-Wide Surgical Registry.
Article in The American journal of cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors associated with 30-day mortality in patients with post-myocardial infarction ventricular septal rupture: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Incidence and In-Hospital Mortality of Ventricular Septal Rupture Following Acute Myocardial Infarction.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ventricular septal defect (VSD) is a life-threatening complication occurring after delayed presentation of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We assessed clinical characteristics based on mortality following surgical repair of post-AMI VSD and evaluated trends of mortality, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device use, and surgical approach. We included all patients who had surgical VSD repair following AMI who were included in a regional quality collaborative from May 2008 through January 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. A univariate logistic regression model was utilized for each clinical variable on in-hospital mortality, while a multivariable model was used on age and variables that showed significant association (p <0.05) in the univariable model. Of the 79 patients who received repair, 32 (41%) were ≥70 years, 49 (62%) were male, and 28 (35%) died. The preoperative mean ejection fraction was 35%. Cardiogenic shock (CS) was observed in 53% (alive vs dead: 39% vs 79%, p = 0.001), while 6% required cardiopulmonary resuscitation (alive vs dead: 2% vs 14%, p = 0.05). MCS devices including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were used in 22% (alive vs dead: 4% vs 54%, p <0.001). Emergent surgery was performed in 37% (alive vs dead: 18% vs 71%, p <0.001), concomitant aortic valve replacement in 10% (alive vs dead: 11% vs 9%, p = 0.029), and delayed intervention (beyond 7 days) in 44% (alive vs dead: 57% vs 21%, p = 0.002). Intraoperatively, blood products were used in 49% (alive vs dead: 45% vs 57%, p = 0.005). Following repair, 22% suffered from renal failure (alive vs dead: 19% vs 48%, p = 0.021). Patients who experienced delayed intervention had higher survival rates probably related to survival bias. Patients who suffered in-hospital mortality were more likely to have CS and to require MCS. Improvement in patient selection by a "Heart Team" approach and new therapeutic options are needed as part of advanced care for mechanical complications of AMI.
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.