ReviewJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2016
Long-term outcomes in high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.
Review in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Management and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Ventricular Arrhythmias.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Prognostic Value of the RISK-PCI Score in Patients with Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Combination of the Barthel Index at Discharge with GRACE Leads to Improved One-Year Mortality Prediction in Older Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction.Clinical interventions in aging · 2023Article
- Circulating Cytokines in Myocardial Infarction Are Associated With Coronary Blood Flow.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
- Dropping risk stratification with subsequent treatment-risk paradox in non ST elevation acute coronary syndromes: a clinical audit in Iraq.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Poor long-term outcome in acute coronary syndrome in a real-life setting: Ten-year outcome of the TACOS study.Cardiology journal · 2021Article
- The accuracy of distribution of non-ST elevation electrocardiographic changes in localising the culprit vessel in non-ST elevation myocardial infarction.Archives of medical sciences. Atherosclerotic diseases · 2020Article
- Article
- Invasive and antiplatelet treatment of patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Understanding and addressing the global risk-treatment paradox.Clinical cardiology · 2019Review
- All-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, and health care costs after 12 months of dual platelet aggregation inhibition after acute myocardial infarction in real-world patients: findings from the Platelet-aggregation Inhibition: Persistence with treatment and cardiovascular Events in Real world (PIPER) study.Vascular health and risk management · 2018Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Greater use of evidence-based therapies has improved outcomes for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in recent decades. Consequently, more ACS patients are surviving beyond 12 months; however, limited data exist to guide treatment in these patients. Long-term outcomes have not improved in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients at the same rate seen in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients, possibly reflecting NSTEMI patients' more complex clinical phenotype, including older age, greater burden of comorbidities and higher likelihood of a previous myocardial infarction (MI). This complexity impacts clinical decision-making, particularly in high-risk NSTEMI patients, in whom risk-benefit assessments are problematical. This review examines the need for more effective long-term management of NSTEMI patients who survive ≥12 months after MI. Ongoing risk assessment using objective measures of risk (for bleeding and ischemia) should be used in all post-MI patients. While 12 months appears to be the optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy for most patients, this may not be the case for high-risk patients, and more research is urgently needed in this population. A recent subgroup analysis from the DAPT study in patients with or without MI who had undergone coronary stenting (31 % presented with MI; 53 % had NSTEMI) and the prospective PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial in patients with a prior MI and at least one other risk factor (40 % had NSTEMI) demonstrated that long-term dual antiplatelet therapy improved cardiovascular outcomes but increased bleeding. Further studies will help clarify the role of dual antiplatelet therapy in stable post-NSTEMI 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.