ArticleClinical cardiology2012
Differential prognostic effect of revascularization according to a simple comorbidity index in high-risk non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is the contemporary care of the older persons with acute coronary syndrome evidence-based?European heart journal open · 2022Article
- Temporal trends and inequalities in coronary angiography utilization in the management of non-ST-Elevation acute coronary syndromes in the U.S.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Determinants of invasive strategy in elderly patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData on the effect of revascularization on outcome in patients with high-risk non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) and significant comorbidities are scarce. Recently, a simple comorbidity index (SCI) including 5 comorbidities (renal failure, dementia, peripheral artery disease, heart failure, and prior myocardial infarction [MI]) has shown to be a useful tool for risk stratification. Nevertheless, therapeutic implications have not been derived. HYPOTHESIS: We sought to evaluate the prognostic effect attributable to revascularization in NSTEACS according the SCI score.
methodsWe included 1017 consecutive patients with NSTEACS. The effect of revascularization on a combined end point of all-cause mortality or nonfatal MI was evaluated by Cox regression according to SCI categories.
resultsA total of 560 (55.1%), 236 (23.2%), and 221 (21.7%) patients showed 0, 1, and ≥2 points according to the SCI, respectively. Coronary angiography was performed in 725 patients (71.5%), and 450 patients (44.3%) underwent revascularization. During a median follow-up of 16 months (interquartile range, 12-36 months), 305 (30%) patients experienced the combined end point (202 deaths [19.9%] and 170 MIs [16.7%]). In multivariate analysis, a differential prognostic effect of revascularization was observed comparing SCI ≥2 vs 0 (P for interaction = 0.008). Thus, revascularization was associated with a greater prognostic benefit in patients with SCI ≥2 (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-0.89), P = 0.018), whereas no significant benefit was observed in those with 0 and 1 point (HR: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.88-1.94, P = 0.171 and HR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.70-1.76, P = 0.651, respectively).
conclusionsIn NSTEACS, the SCI score appears to be a useful tool for identifying a subset of patients with a significant long-term death/MI risk reduction attributable to revascularization.
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.