ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Disparities in the management of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a questionnaire survey in Beijing.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate disparities in the management of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) across different hospital levels in Beijing.
methodsA standardized questionnaire was electronically distributed to 61 hospitals through the Beijing Cardiovascular Internal Medicine Quality Control and Improvement Center and the Beijing Extracorporeal Life Support Quality Control and Improvement Center. A multistage sampling method was also used to survey hospitals in eight Beijing districts that were not included in these quality control networks. Hospitals were categorized as Level 1 hospitals, Level 2 hospitals, or Level 3 hospitals according to international standards and the domestic context.
resultsA total of 142 hospitals were analyzed. All participating hospitals were capable of managing cardiovascular diseases. 33.1% of hospitals did not have percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) capability; 40.8% provided only intra-aortic balloon pump and PCI, whereas 26.0% offered temporary or durable mechanical circulatory support. Level 3 hospitals often lacked established protocols for AMI-CS management. Level 1 hospitals (59.4%) and Level 2 hospitals (56.5%) were more likely to maintain a minimum mean arterial pressure target of 65 mmHg, whereas Level 3 hospitals more commonly accepted a lower target (45.5%). Pulmonary artery catheter monitoring was infrequently used across all hospital levels. Continuous lactate monitoring also differed significantly (Level 3, 39.1% vs. Level 2, 74.6% vs. Level 1, 84.4%; overall p < 0.001). Among the 61 hospitals participating in the quality control network, only 3.6% adopted the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stage classification. Shock teams were available in 71.9% of Level 1 hospitals and 44.4% of Level 2 hospitals. Furthermore, only 31.9% of Level 3 hospitals had established referral networks.
conclusionSignificant disparities exist in the diagnosis and management of AMI-CS across different hospital levels in Beijing. There is an urgent need to enhance the understanding and management of AMI-CS, especially in Level 2 and Level 3 hospitals.
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.