ArticleJournal of the Saudi Heart Association2015
Prognosis of primary percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction.
Article in Journal of the Saudi Heart Association, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acute Coronary Syndrome Management in Older Patients: A Dual-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Invasive versus Conservative Treatment Approach among Older Adult Patients Admitted with Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.Annals of geriatric medicine and research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the prognosis of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) and medical therapy (MT) in elderly patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).
methodsA total of 238 STEMI patients aged above 80 and treated with PPCI (n = 186) and MT (n = 52) at Harefield Hospital, London were included in this study. Patients who did not have true STEMI based on non-diagnostic electrocardiogram (ECG) for STEMI and negative troponin, who presented with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and had normal coronaries were excluded from this study. Primary PCI was defined as any use of a guidewire for more than diagnostic purposes in patients with STEMI, whereas conventional MT was defined as treatment of patients with anti-platelets and anti-thrombotic medications without thrombolysis.
resultsThe survival rate of PPCI patients was 86% (n = 160) at month 1 followed by 83.9% (n = 156) at month 6, and 81.2% (n = 151) at month 12. The survival rate of MT patients was 44.2% (n = 23) at month 1 followed by 36.5% (n = 19) at month 6, and 34.6% (n = 18) at month 12. Compared to MT, significantly fewer comorbidities were found in the PPCI group. Ventricular fibrillation (VF) (4.8%) and consequent admission to intensive care unit (7%) were the major complications of the PPCI group.
conclusionPPCI has a higher survival rate and, compared to MT, fewer comorbidities were observed in the PPCI group of elderly patients presenting with STEMI.
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.