ArticlePatient preference and adherence2014
Factors associated with the use of percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly Chinese patients with a first ST elevated acute myocardial infarction.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2014. 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.
- The Rate of Coronary Angiography Refusal in Older Patients with Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome and Its Impact on All-Cause Mortality.Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni · 2021Article
- Identifying patients with refusal of percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction: a classification and regression tree analysis.Internal and emergency medicine · 2019Article
- What's Age Got to do with it? A Review of Contemporary Revascularization in the Elderly.Current cardiology reviews · 2015Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRapid reperfusion therapies (RT), particularly percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), improve short- and long-term outcomes in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, a substantial proportion of patients with STEMI, especially older patients, refuse or do not undergo PCI. Our study aims to identify factors associated with the use of PCI in elderly Chinese patients with their first STEMI.
methodElderly (aged 65 years of age or over) patients with STEMI were enrolled between March 2010 and August 2013 at two hospitals in Beijing. Patients with previous myocardial infarction and those with contraindications to reperfusion were excluded. A standardized questionnaire including onset time and severity of symptoms, history of angina pectoris, comorbid illnesses, functional status, family income, health insurance, education, patients' trust in treating physicians, and whether patient was acquainted with a cardiologist was used to collect data from patients or their family.
resultsFive hundred and sixty-eight patients were enrolled. PCI was accepted by 432 (76%) and refused by 136 (24%). Multivariate analysis showed that older age (>75 years; odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.78), self-rated mild symptoms (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.06-0.21), lower degree of trust in treating physician (<6 in a 10 point scale; [OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.09-0.28]), and not being acquainted with a cardiologist (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.07-0.42) were associated with refusal of PCI.
conclusionPCI was refused by almost one quarter of eligible elderly Chinese patients with a first STEMI. Age, symptom severity, and trust in physician were independent factors associated with the use of PCI in these patients.
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.