ArticleJournal of biomedical research2014
Comparison of clinical outcomes of Chinese men and women after coronary stenting for coronary artery disease: a multi-center retrospective analysis of 4,334 patients.
Article in Journal of biomedical research, 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.
- TIMI frame count as a predictor of major adverse cardiovascular events during the first month after primary PCI.Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2024Article
- Practice Variation Among Hospitals in Revascularization Therapy and Its Association With Procedure-related Mortality.Medical care · 2016Article
- Outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients ≥ 75 years: one-center study in a Chinese patient group.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The outcome differences between Chinese male and female patients within one-year follow-up after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent remain unclear. The present study was aimed to compare clinical outcomes in such two populations. From May 1999 to December 2009, 4,334 patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina, stable angina, or silent ischemia, who underwent PCI, were registered at our centers. Among these, 3,089 were men and 1,245 were women. We compared these groups with respect to the primary outcomes of MI and secondary outcomes including a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including cardiac death, MI, target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis (ST), definite ST and probable ST at one-year follow-up. Chinese male patients had a higher MACE rate (13% vs. 10.7%, P = 0.039), mainly led by TVR (9.09% vs. 6.98%, P = 0.024) at one year, which was significantly different than female patients. Chinese male and female patients showed a significant difference on MACEs. However, there was no significant difference with respect to MI between these groups.
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.