Key result
After-hours PCI shows comparable in-hospital mortality to in-hours procedures.
Why the study?
The impact of PCI timing on clinical outcomes in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock remains unclear.
Does after-hours percutaneous coronary intervention compared to in-hours intervention impact mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock?
Cohort
Yes
Does after-hours percutaneous coronary intervention compared to in-hours intervention impact mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock?
In patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, after-hours percutaneous coronary intervention is common but does not appear to adversely impact the persistently high in-hospital mortality compared to in-hours procedures.
BACKGROUND Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) remains a time-critical emergency with persistently high mortality despite advances in reperfusion and mechanical circulatory support. Clinical outcomes may be influenced by the timing of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), with after-hours procedures potentially affected by logistical and staffing constraints. The impact of PCI timing on AMI-CS outcomes remains unclear. METHOD A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry including all adults undergoing PCI for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI complicated by CS. PCI timing was classified as procedure start time in-hours (0800-1759 weekdays) or after-hours (all other times). Baseline, procedural, and outcome data were compared. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. Long-term mortality was determined through linkage with the Australian National Death Index. RESULTS CS PCI cases were undertaken from 2013 to 2024; with 58.5% occurring after. CONCLUSIONS hours, with in-hospital mortality remaining high over the past decade irrespective of procedure timing. These findings underscore the need for the continued development of shock management paradigms and strategic deployment of emerging treatments in AMI-CS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Batchelor et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock. After-hours percutaneous coronary intervention vs. In-hours percutaneous coronary intervention (0800-1759 weekdays) was evaluated on In-hospital mortality. After-hours percutaneous coronary intervention, which accounted for 58.5% of cases, was associated with persistently high in-hospital mortality comparable to in-hours procedures.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: