Temporal Trends in Cardiogenic Shock Treatment and Outcomes Among Ontario Patients With Myocardial Infarction Between 1992 and 2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have demonstrated that emergent revascularization improves survival of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). However, rates of uptake and impact on outcomes remain uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 9750 patients (3.1%) with CS among 311 183 AMI patients in the Ontario Myocardial Infarction Database between 1992 and 2008 (55.8% men; mean age, 73 years). CS incidence, mortality, revascularization, and transfers from nonrevascularization sites were studied over 3 periods: period 1, before the 1999 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association AMI guidelines recommending urgent revascularization for patients <75 years; period 2 (1999 to 2004); and period 3, after 2004 guideline revisions suggesting revascularization for patients ≥75 years. Compared with period 1, period 3 was marked by significantly lower CS incidence (3.4% versus 2.6%), increase in transfers from nonrevascularization sites (10.6% versus 23.9%), and adjusted 1-year mortality rates (81.9% versus 71.5%; all comparisons statistically significant). Admission to nonrevascularization sites was associated with lower revascularization rates (8.6% versus 46.6%, P<0.001) and higher adjusted 1-year mortality rates (78.8% [95% confidence interval, 77.4 to 80.2] versus 71.9% [95% confidence interval, 69.8 to 74.1]). Patients ≥75 years of age were less likely to be revascularized or transferred. The greatest increase in transfers from nonrevascularization sites occurred between periods 1 and 2 for patients <75 years (16.5% to 31.4%; P<0.001) and between periods 2 and 3 for patients ≥75 years (6.7% to 12.8%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Publication of American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines was followed by increased revascularization and transfer rates, along with declining mortality rates among Ontario AMI patients with CS. These results highlight possibilities for further improvement, particularly among patients eligible for transfer from nonrevascularization sites.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".