ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2015
Hospital variability in use of anticoagulant strategies during acute myocardial infarction treated with an early invasive strategy.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDuring a myocardial infarction, no single best approach of systemic anticoagulation is recommended, likely due to a lack of comparative effectiveness studies and trade-offs between treatments. METHODS AND
resultsWe investigated the patterns of use and site-level variability in anticoagulant strategies (unfractionated heparin [UFH] only, low-molecular-weight heparin [LMWH] only, UFH+LMWH, any bivalirudin) of 63 796 patients with a principal diagnosis of myocardial infarction treated with an early invasive strategy with percutaneous coronary intervention at 257 hospitals. About half (47%) of patients received UFH only, 6% UFH+LMWH, 7% LMWH only, and 40% bivalirudin. Compared with UFH, the median odds ratio was 2.90 for LMWH+UFH, 4.70 for LMWH only, and 3.09 for bivalirudin, indicating that 2 "identical" patients would have a 3- to 4-fold greater likelihood of being treated with anticoagulants other than UFH at one hospital compared with another. We then categorized hospitals as low- or high-users of LMWH and bivalirudin. Using hierarchical, multivariate regression models, we found that low bivalirudin-using hospitals had higher unadjusted bleeding rates, but the risk-adjusted and anticoagulant-adjusted bleeding rates did not differ across the hospital anticoagulation phenotypes. Risk-standardized mortality and risk-standardized length of stay also did not differ across hospital phenotypes.
conclusionsWe found substantial site-level variability in the choice of anticoagulants for invasively managed acute myocardial infarction patients, even after accounting for patient factors. No single hospital-use pattern was found to be clinically superior. More studies are needed to determine which patients would derive the greatest benefit from various anticoagulants and to support consistent treatment of patients with the optimal anticoagulant strategy.
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.