ArticleChinese medical journal2015
Long-term prognosis of patients with acute non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing different treatment strategies.
Article in Chinese medical journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Outcomes for Non-ST Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction in Weekday vs Weekend Admissions: The Weekend Effect.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2022Article
- Observational
- Wild-type p53-induced Phosphatase 1 Deficiency Exacerbates Myocardial Infarction-induced Ischemic Injury.Chinese medical journal · 2017Article
- Transfusion of Plasma Collected at Late Phase after Preconditioning Reduces Myocardial Infarct Size Induced by Ischemia-reperfusion in RatsChinese medical journal · 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn cardiology, it is controversial whether different therapy strategies influence prognosis after acute coronary syndrome. We examined and compared the long-term outcomes of invasive and conservative strategies in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and characterized the patients selected for an invasive approach.
methodsA total of 976 patients with acute NSTEMI were collected from December 2006 to October 2012 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University Hospital. They are divided into conservative strategy (586 patients) and invasive strategy (390 patients) group. Unified follow-up questionnaire was performed by telephone contact (cut-off date was November, 2013). The long-term clinical events were analyzed and related to the different treatment strategies.
resultsThe median follow-up time was 29 months. Mortality was 28.7% (n = 168) in the conservative group and 2.1% (n = 8) in the invasive management at long-term clinical follow-up. The secondary endpoint (the composite endpoint) was 59.0% (n = 346) in the conservative group and 30.3% (n = 118) in the invasive management. Multivariate analysis showed that patients in the conservative group had higher all-cause mortality rates than those who had the invasive management (adjusted risk ratio [RR] = 7.795; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.796-16.006, P < 0.001), and the similar result was also seen in the secondary endpoint (adjusted RR = 2.102; 95% CI: 1.694-2.610, P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis according to each Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction risk score (TRS), log-rank analysis showed lower mortality and secondary endpoint rates in the invasive group with the intermediate and high-risk patients (TRS 3-7).
conclusionsAn invasive strategy could improve long-term outcomes for NSTEMI patients, especially for intermediate and high-risk ones (TRS 3-7).
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.