ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2015
Does treatment impact health outcomes for patients after acute coronary syndrome?
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effect of socioeconomic disadvantage on prescription of guideline-recommended medications for patients with acute coronary syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal for equity in health · 2017Pooled it
- Short- and long-term follow-up of antithrombotic management patterns in patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome: Indian subgroup of EPICOR Asia study.Indian heart journalObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMortality rates for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients are still very high all over the world. Our study aimed to investigate the impact of ACS treatment on cardiovascular (CV) mortality eight years following ACS.
methodsA retrospective cohort study with a total of 613 patients was used. The data was collected from databases and medical records. An evidence-based treatment (EBT) algorithm was used based on the ESC guidelines. Logistic regression analysis and standardized odds ratios with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for the risk assessment, with a p level<0.05 considered as significant.
resultsThe median follow-up time in this study was 7.6 years. During follow-up 48.9% of the patients (n=300) died from CV and 207 (69%) for a relevant reason. For monotherapy ACE inhibitors and β-blockers, and for fixed dose combined drugs ACE inhibitors and diuretics, were most frequently used. EBT was provided to 37.8% of patients. The EBT use (HR 0.541, CI 0.394-0.742, p<0.001) during follow-up period was important for reducing CV mortality in ACS patients.
conclusionsThe combined use of EBT significantly improved outcomes. The recurrent myocardial infarction and percutaneous coronary intervention patients were more frequent in EBT and it was beneficial for reducing CV mortality.
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.