ReviewHerz2009
[Acute myocardial infarction: acute coronary intervention at any hospital versus acute coronary intervention at specialized centers only].
Review in Herz, 2009. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are currently divided into those with ST elevation (STE-ACS = ST elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI]) and those without ST elevation (NSTE-ACS). The latter are further divided into NSTE-ACS with risk factors and NSTE-ACS without risk factors. For NSTE-ACS patients with risk factors an invasive strategy within 72 h after presentation is recommended, whereas NSTE-ACS patients without risk factors can be treated conservatively, without a routine invasive diagnosis. In patients with STE-ACS, primary angioplasty is the reperfusion therapy of choice. These recommendations concerning the invasive strategies are valid only under three conditions: (1) primary angioplasty has to be performed within 2 h after diagnosis of an STE-ACS; (2) door-to-balloon times for STE-ACS have to be < 60 min; (3) the invasive procedures have to be performed by experienced investigators at hospitals with a sufficient annual PCI (percutaneous coronary intervention) volume. The last point is based on studies which showed a volume-outcome relationship for PCIs in ACS patients and hospital mortality. In Germany, a nationwide supply with such an invasive strategy for ACS patients is currently possible, even within the recommended time frames. Therefore, local networks have to be established to achieve this goal. However, at least in regions with a high density of invasive centers, such networks should take the investigators' experience and the annual interventional volumes of the participating hospitals into account.
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.