Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39886607›Full record

ArticleCJC open2024

Management and Outcomes of Type I and Type II Myocardial Infarction in Cardiogenic Shock.

Cameron Stotts, Richard G Jung, Graeme Prosperi-Porta, Pietro Di Santo, Omar Abdel-Razek, Simon Parlow, F Daniel Ramirez, Trevor Simard, Marino Labinaz, Baylie Morgan and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in CJC open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Cameron StottsCAPITAL Research Group, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Richard G JungCAPITAL Research Group, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Graeme Prosperi-PortaCAPITAL Research Group, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Pietro Di SantoCAPITAL Research Group, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Omar Abdel-RazekCAPITAL Research Group, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Simon ParlowCAPITAL Research Group, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
F Daniel RamirezCAPITAL Research Group, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Trevor SimardMayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Marino LabinazDivision of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Baylie MorganCAPITAL Research Group, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Lisa RobinsonCAPITAL Research Group, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Rebecca MathewCAPITAL Research Group, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Benjamin HibbertCAPITAL Research Group, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Type I myocardial infarction (T1MI) or type II myocardial infarction (T2MI) have different underlying mechanisms; however, in the setting of cardiogenic shock (CS), it is not understood if patients experience resultantly different outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine clinical features, biomarker patterns, and outcomes in these subgroups. Methods: Patients from the CAPITAL-DOREMI trial presenting with acute myocardial infarction-associated CS (n = 103) were classified as T1MI (n = 61) or T2MI (n = 42). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause in-hospital mortality, cardiac arrest, the need for mechanical circulatory support, or initiation of renal replacement therapy at 30 days. Secondary endpoints were evaluated as individual components of the primary endpoint. Results: Patients with T1MI CS did not have a higher incidence of the primary composite endpoint compared with T2MI CS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-2.77; Conclusions: There were no differences in adverse clinical outcomes between patients with T1MI and T2MI CS, although the events were numerically increased, and the sample size was small. Overall, this study provides a hypothesis-generating analysis regarding the clinical and biochemical outcomes in T1MI vs T2MI CS.

Identifiers

PMID39886607
PMCPMC11780372

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.