Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25844361›Full record

ArticleCMAJ open

Providing optimal regional care for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a prospective cohort study of patients in the Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant Local Health Integration Network.

Mathew Mercuri, Michelle Welsford, Jon-David Schwalm, Shamir R Mehta, Purnima Rao-Melacini, Nicholas Valettas MD MASc, Tej Sheth, Michael Rokoss, Sanjit S Jolly, James L Velianou and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Improving the management of acute myocardial infarctions: There's an App for that.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Mathew MercuriDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Columbia University, New York ; Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Michelle WelsfordDepartment of Medicine, Division of Emergency Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. ; Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton Ontario, Hamilton, Ont.
Jon-David SchwalmDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. ; Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton Ontario, Hamilton, Ont. ; Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont.
Shamir R MehtaDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. ; Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton Ontario, Hamilton, Ont. ; Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont.
Purnima Rao-MelaciniPopulation Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont.
Nicholas Valettas MD MASc
Tej ShethDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. ; Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton Ontario, Hamilton, Ont. ; Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont.
Michael RokossDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. ; Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton Ontario, Hamilton, Ont.
Sanjit S JollyDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. ; Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton Ontario, Hamilton, Ont. ; Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont.
James L VelianouDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. ; Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton Ontario, Hamilton, Ont.
Madhu K NatarajanDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. ; Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton Ontario, Hamilton, Ont. ; Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ont.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough considered the evidence-based best therapy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), many patients do not receive primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) because of health care resource distribution and constraints. This study describes the clinical management and outcomes of all patients identified with STEMI within a region, including those who did not receive primary PCI.

methodsThis study used a prospective cohort design. Patients presenting with STEMI to PCI- and non-PCI-capable hospitals in one integrated health region in Ontario were included in the study. The primary objective was to examine use of reperfusion strategies and timeliness of care. Secondary objectives included determining (through regression models) which variables were associated with mortality within 90 days, and describing patient uptake of risk-reducing therapies and activities post-STEMI.

resultsBetween Apr. 1, 2010, and Mar. 31, 2013, data were collected on 2247 consecutive patients presenting with STEMI. Patients presenting to the PCI-capable hospital were more likely to receive primary PCI (82.5% v. 65.2%, p < 0.001) and be treated within optimal treatment times. However, there was no appreciable difference in mortality at 90 days post-STEMI between patients presenting to PCI- and non-PCI-capable hospitals (7.8% v. 7.5%, p = 0.82), even after adjustment for acuity on presentation. Despite recognized risk factors, many patients were not taking evidence-based medications for risk factor modification before STEMI.

interpretationA systematic approach to regional STEMI care focusing on timely access to the best available therapies, rather than the type of reperfusion provided alone, can yield favourable outcomes.

Identifiers

PMID25844361
PMCPMC4382034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.