ArticleAsiaIntervention2025
The obesity paradox revisited - influence on the results of percutaneous coronary interventions.
Article in AsiaIntervention, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The "obesity paradox" has been seen in patients with cardiovascular disease. However, the role of the obesity paradox in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is controversial. Aims: Our study aims to investigate the effect of weight categories on mortality in patients undergoing PCI. Methods: The National Inpatient Sample database for the years 2016-2020 was analysed using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes in adult patients >18 years of age. Patients undergoing PCI were identified and stratified using weight categories. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess mortality. Results: We identified 10,069,454 patients who had undergone PCI. Compared to patients in the normal-weight category, cachectic patients had the highest mortality at 9.78% (odds ratio [OR] 3.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.65-4.12; p<0.001). Mortality was lowest in overweight patients at 1.28% (OR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.39-0.55; p<0.001), followed by obese patients at 1.61% (OR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.56-0.61; p<0.001). In the morbidly obese category, this protective effect was much less, with mortality being measured at 2.05% (OR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.42-0.78; p<0.001; vs 2.72% in the normal-weight category). After multivariate analysis, mortality remained high in cachectic patients (OR 3.65, 95% CI: 3.42-3.90; p<0.001) and remained low in overweight (OR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.43-0.61; p<0.001) and obese (OR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.66-0.71; p<0.001) patients, but the protective value of weight almost disappeared in the morbidly obese category (OR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.96-1.00; p=0.04). Conclusions: The obesity paradox held only partially, with the lowest mortality in the overweight category, followed by patients with obesity, then an almost complete loss of protection in those with morbid obesity, and the highest mortality in cachectic patients.
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.