ArticleSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina2001
Pharmacological management of acute myocardial infarction in the municipal district of Rio de Janeiro.
Article in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- How can adherence to guidelines be improved? The case of fibrinolytics.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2001Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextInternational studies have shown a large variation in the utilization patterns of interventions, in acute myocardial infarction.
objectiveTo analyze utilization patterns of pharmacological interventions in acute myocardial infarction and their corresponding effects on hospital mortality.
designCross-sectional study. LOCAL: Hospitals of the Brazilian National Health System (SUS) in the municipal district of Rio de Janeiro. SAMPLE: A stratified hospital sample of 391 medical records selected from the 1,936 admissions registered in the SUS Hospital Information System (SIH/SUS) with a main diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, in the studied district in 1997. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Sex, age, time to treatment, risk factors, severity factors, diagnosis confirmation, use of pharmacological interventions, hospital death, contraindication of the use of thrombolytic therapy, contraindication of aspirin use.
resultsWe reviewed 98.2% of the sampled medical records. Acute myocardial infarction diagnosis was confirmed in 91.7% (95% CI 88.3 to 94.2). 61.5% were men and 38.5% women, with an average age of 60.2 years (SD 2.4). The median time interval between symptom onset and hospital admission was 11 hours. Hospital mortality was 20.6% (95% CI 16.7 to 25.0). Intravenous thrombolytic therapy was used in 19.5% (95% CI 15.8 to 23.9) of the cases; aspirin in 86.5% (95% CI 82.5 to 89.6); beta-blockers in 49.0% (95% CI 43.8 to 54.1); angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in 63.3% (95% CI 58.2 to 68.1); nitrates in 82.0% (95% CI 82.4 to 89.6); heparin in 81.3% (95% CI 76.9 to 85.0); calcium antagonists in 30.5% (95% CI 26.0 to 35.4). There was a significant variation in the use of thrombolytic therapy, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, calcium antagonists and heparin among hospitals of different juridical nature.
conclusionsThere was underutilization of some interventions with well-established efficacy (thrombolytic therapy, aspirin, beta-blockers and intravenous nitrates). The use of calcium antagonists, not supported by scientific evidence in acute myocardial infarction, was quite frequent. A logistic model documented the benefit of aspirin, beta-blockers and ACE inhibitor use in reducing the chance of hospital death.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.