Resource Utilization and Costs Associated With Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) is associated with significant short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. Despite this, little is known about associated cost. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the health care costs and resource use associated with AMI-CS using administrative data from the province of Ontario, Canada. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with AMI-CS from April 2009 to March 2019. One-year costs following index admission were reported at an individual level. We used generalized linear models to identify factors associated with increased cost. We stratified patients by revascularization strategy to compare cost in each group and examined total cost at a patient level per individual fiscal year. Results: We included 9,789 consecutive patients with AMI-CS across 135 centers in Ontario (mean age 70.5 years; 67.7% male). Mortality in-hospital was 30.2%, and mortality at 2 years was 45.9%. The median inpatient cost per patient was $23,912 (IQR: $12,234-$41,833) with a median total 1-year cost of $37,913 (IQR: $20,113-$66,582). The median 1-year cost was $17,730 (IQR: $9,323-$38,379) for those who died in hospital, and $45,713 (IQR: $29,688-$77,683) for those surviving to discharge, with $12,719 (IQR: $4,262-$35,275) occurring after discharge. Patients who received coronary artery bypass grafting incurred the highest cost among revascularization groups. No significant differences were observed in cost per fiscal year from 2009 to 2019. Conclusions: AMI-CS is associated with significant health care costs, both during the index hospitalization and following discharge. To optimize cost-effectiveness, future therapies should aim to reduce disability in addition to improving mortality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".