ArticleJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions
Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Mechanical Circulatory Device Utilization and Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock.
Article in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intra-aortic Balloon Pump Utilization Prior to Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Social Determinants of Health.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic Shock; Health Disparities; Equity; Mechanical Circulatory Support; Sex Differences; Multidisciplinary Care; Protocolized Care.Current heart failure reports · 2025Review
- Bridge to Life: Current Landscape of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Heart-Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Characteristics, Treatment Strategies and Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Contemporary Dutch Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study evaluates the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on utilization of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices and outcomes in cardiogenic shock (CS). Background: CS is associated with significant mortality. There is increasing use of temporary MCS devices in CS, and its impact on outcomes is currently under investigation. There is a lack of data on the effect of SES on the utilization of MCS devices in CS. Methods: CS hospitalizations were obtained from the State Inpatient Databases in 2016 from 9 states representing various regions in the United States. The study had exempt institutional review board status as the database includes deidentified data. Hospitalizations were separated into SES cohorts based on the median household income of the patient residence zip code. Utilization of MCS devices and revascularization procedures along with clinical outcomes with CS were compared across the quartiles. Results: There were 38,520 hospitalizations identified with CS, 42.6% of which were secondary to acute myocardial infarction. Patients from higher SES areas were significantly older but had lower burden of comorbidities. Utilization of temporary MCS devices was higher for hospitalizations from higher SES regions (frequency from the lowest SES quartile to the highest SES quartile: 21.3%, 21.5%, 23.5, and 24.1%, Conclusions: Higher SES regions had increased use of temporary MCS. There was no difference in mortality between SES cohorts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.