ArticleCureus2025
Impact of Rhabdomyolysis on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a major cause of death and disability worldwide. The clinical outcomes of the co-occurrence of rhabdomyolysis and AMI are not very well studied. The aim of this study is to analyze the impact of rhabdomyolysis on the clinical outcomes in patients with AMI.
methodsBetween 2018 and 2021, patients diagnosed with AMI and rhabdomyolysis were identified using the National Inpatient Sample and ICD-10 codes. A multivariate regression analysis was conducted using STATA software (Stata Corp., College Station, TX).
resultsA total of 2,467,290 hospitalizations diagnosed with AMI were identified. Of those, 17,800 had a co-diagnosis of rhabdomyolysis. Compared to patients with AMI alone, patients with AMI and rhabdomyolysis had a higher in-hospital mortality rate (2,965 (16.65%) vs. 113,455 (4.63%), adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.38, p<0.0001), cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs) (740 (4.2%) vs. 30,740 (1.25%), aOR 2.13, p<0.0001), cardiogenic shock (3,530 (19.83%) vs. 169,490 (6.92%), aOR 2.24, p<0.0001), acute kidney injury (AKI) (10,660 (59.89%) vs. 503,815 (20.57%), aOR 5.13, p<0.0001), need for hemodialysis (1,105 (6.2%) vs. 85,160 (3.48%), aOR 1.94, p<0.0001), and prolonged length of stay (LOS) (aOR 1.98, p<0.0001). There was no statistical significance between the two groups in developing acute heart failure (4,765 (26.77%) vs. 4,899 (20.9%), aOR 0.92, p=0.112). Additionally, patients with rhabdomyolysis and AMI were less likely to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (3,240 (18.2%) vs. 786,286 (32.1%), p<0.0001).
conclusionPatients who had AMI with rhabdomyolysis had substantially worse in-hospital outcomes, including higher in-hospital mortality rates, higher risks of developing CVAs, cardiogenic shock, AKI, hemodialysis, and longer LOS.
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.