ArticleJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2025
Contemporary Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock in New York: A Multicenter Registry.
Article in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early revascularization improves survival in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS). However, lower rates of invasive management are seen in states with public reporting of outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. The reasons for this remain speculative. We aim to report contemporary treatment patterns and examine the reasons for deferral of invasive management in patients with STEMI-CS in a New York cohort. Methods: All patients with STEMI-CS in the Northwell-Shock Registry, a retrospective study of cardiogenic shock across 11 hospitals in New York, treated between January 2016 and August 2022, were included. Clinical variables and outcomes were compared between patients managed invasively and conservatively. Reasons for deferral of invasive management were collected manually from clinical documentation. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to examine the factors associated with a conservative management strategy. Results: Invasive management was performed in 87% of patients, revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention in 63% and coronary artery bypass grafting surgery in 8%. Hospital mortality was 27% for patients managed invasively and 81% for those managed conservatively. The most cited reasons for deferring invasive management were unclear neurologic status (35%), patient or family preference (29%), and complicating medical conditions (25%). Meanwhile, the factors independently associated with conservative management were older age, higher creatinine, cardiac arrest, and higher Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) stages. Conclusions: Although rates of invasive management were high in this contemporary cohort of STEMI-CS patients in New York, risk aversion seems to still play a role in the deferral of invasive management in many patients.
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.