ArticleClinical cardiology2010
Comparison of traditional risk factors, angiographic findings, and in-hospital mortality between smoking and nonsmoking Turkish men and women with acute myocardial infarction.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Demystifying Smoker's Paradox: A Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis in Patients Hospitalized With Acute Heart Failure.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019Observational
- The impact of cigarette smoking on infarct location and in-hospital outcome following acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction.Journal of cardiovascular and thoracic research · 2019Article
- Underlying risk factors and their relationship with extent of coronary vessel involvement in patients undergoing coronary angiography in North of Iran.Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2018Article
- Smoking status on outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention.Clinical cardiology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prevalence of smoking is high in Turkey. However, there are no data available evaluating the differences between smokers and nonsmokers according to their sex in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in Turkey. HYPOTHESIS: The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of smoking and its relationship to age, localization, and extension of coronary heart disease (CHD), and other risk factors in Turkish men and women with first AMI.
methodsThis study included, 1502 patients with first AMI from 3 different cities in Turkey. The baseline characteristics and traditional risk factors for CHD, Coronary angiographic results, and in-hospital outcome were recorded.
resultsThe proportion of male smokers was significantly higher than that of women (68% vs 18%, P < 0.001). Smokers were younger by almost a decade than nonsmokers (P < 0.001). Male nonsmokers were younger than females; however, the mean age of first AMI was similar in male and female smokers. In both genders, prevalence of hypertension and diabetes mellitus was significantly lower in smokers than in nonsmokers (P < 0.001). Smokers had less multivessel disease and less comorbidity as compared to nonsmokers. Although the in-hospital mortality rate was lower in smokers, smoking status was not an independent predictor of mortality.
conclusionsSmoking, by decreasing the age of first AMI in women, offsets the age difference in first AMI between men and women. The mean age of first AMI is lower in Turkey than most European countries due to a high percentage of smoking.
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.