Trial reportThe American journal of cardiology2010
Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction on clinical outcomes over five years after infarct-related coronary artery recanalization (from the Occluded Artery Trial [OAT]).
Trial report in The American journal of cardiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00004562 (Occluded Artery Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Occluded Artery Trial (OAT) - Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial of PCI and Medical Therapy Only Post MI
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Heart failure in post-MI patients with persistent IRA occlusion: prevalence, risk factors, and the long-term effect of PCI in the Occluded Artery Trial (OAT).Journal of cardiac failure · 2012Trial
- The role of late reperfusion in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a real-world retrospective cohort study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2020Article
- Introduction and Vision.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 10 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In the Occluded Artery Trial (OAT), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of an infarct-related artery on days 3 to 28 after acute myocardial infarction was of no benefit compared to medical therapy alone. The present analysis was conducted to determine whether PCI might provide benefit to the subgroup of higher risk patients with a depressed ejection fraction (EF). Of 2,185 analyzed patients (age 58.6 +/- 11.0 years) with infarct-related artery occlusion on days 3 to 28 after acute myocardial infarction in the Occluded Artery Trial, 1,094 were assigned to PCI and 1,091 to medical therapy. The primary end point was a composite of death, reinfarction, and New York Heart Association class IV heart failure. The outcomes were analyzed by EF (first tertile, EF < or =44%, vs second and third tertiles combined, EF >44%). Interaction of the treatment effect with EF on the study outcomes were examined using the Cox survival model. The 5-year rates of the primary end point (death, reinfarction, or New York Heart Association class IV heart failure) were not different in either subgroup (PCI vs medical therapy, hazard ratio 1.25, 99% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.88, for EF < or =44%; hazard ratio 0.98, 99% confidence interval 0.64 to 1.50, for EF >44%). However, in patients with an EF >44%, PCI reduced the rate of subsequent revascularization (p = 0.004, interaction p = 0.05). In conclusion, optimal medical therapy remains the overall treatment of choice for stable patients with a persistent total occlusion of the infarct-related artery after acute myocardial infarction, irrespective of the baseline EF. In patients with normal or moderately impaired left ventricular contractility, PCI reduced the need for subsequent revascularization but did not otherwise improve outcomes.
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.