Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Apr 27.
Published in final edited form as: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Apr 23;73(15):1890–1900. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.01.055

Table 3.

Estimated treatment effects in older adults comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to no PCI on the risk of in hospital mortality after ST-elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock adjusting for propensity score subclass using survey analysis method.

Propensity Score Subclass1 Treatment Subpopulation Size N (%) Events (%) OR 95% CI p-value
1 PCI 21,953 (32) 9,992 (46) 0.45 0.38 – 0.54 <0.001
No PCI 46,505 (68) 30,064 (65)
2 PCI 25,026 (37) 10,924 (44) 0.50 0.42 – 0.59 <0.001
No PCI 43,332 (63) 26,379 (61)
3 PCI 27,406 (40) 12,199 (45) 0.51 0.43 – 0.60 <0.001
No PCI 40,633 (60) 24,889 (61) -
4 PCI 28,063 (41) 11,971 (43) 0.45 0.37 – 0.55 <0.001
No PCI 39,952 (59) 24,955 (62)
5 PCI 32,346 (48) 12,371 (38) 0.45 0.38 – 0.54 <0.001
No PCI 35,664 (52) 20,566 (58)

Abbreviations: OR = Odds Ratio; CI = confidence interval

1

Propensity Score: Using logistic regression, the propensity score was estimated by modeling the associations of the following covariates with treatment (percutaneous coronary intervention) given the covariates: gender, race, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obesity, peripheral vascular disease, pulmonary circulation disorder, chronic lung disease, renal failure, liver disorder, coagulopathy, weight loss, electrolyte imbalance, blood loss, and alcoholism. Survey analysis was performed using a self-weighted, stratified systematic, random sample of discharges from all hospitals in the sampling frame (see Methods section).