ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
In-hospital clinical outcomes of elderly patients (≥60 years) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 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.
- Frailty as an independent predictor for midterm adverse outcomes in the elderly undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A longitudinal cohort study.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2025Observational
- In-hospital major arrhythmias, arrhythmic death and resuscitation after successful primary percutaneous intervention for acute transmural infarction: a retrospective single-centre cohort study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Elderly patients are at high risk of mortality when they present with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the clinical outcomes of this sub-group undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) have not been well established, despite recent advances in both devices and techniques. In the present retrospective cohort study from a Chinese single center, we assessed the clinical outcomes and predictors of mortality in elderly patients (≥60 years) underwent with PPCI. The primary endpoints were immediate angiographic success and in-hospital procedural success. The secondary endpoints were all-cause death in hospital. Between January 2011 and December 2013, a total of 184 consecutive patients with acute STEMI underwent PPCI were enrolled. 116 (63.04%) patients were in the elderly group. Despite the difference in lesion complexity between groups, the immediate angiographic success rate was similar (93.97% in the elderly group, and 94.12% in the non-elderly group, P=0.966). The procedural success rate were not significantly different between the two groups (90.52% in the elderly group, and 94.12% in the non-elderly group, P=0.389). However, in-hospital mortality was statistically higher in elderly group than in the non-elderly group (8.62% Vs 1.47%, P=0.048). The major causes of death were cardiac shock and malignant arrhythmias (ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation). Our results indicate that PPCI in the elderly is feasible and has a high likelihood of immediate angiographic and procedural success.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26379931PMC4565314What 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.