Trial reportHerz2016
Guideline-conforming timing of invasive management in troponin-positive or high-risk ACS without persistent ST-segment elevation in German chest pain units. Urban university maximum care vs. rural regional primary care.
Trial report in Herz, 2016. 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.
- Review
- Article
- How rapid is rapid? Exemplary results of real-life rapid rule-out troponin timing in troponin-positive acute coronary syndromes without persistent ST-segment elevation in two contrasting German chest pain unit facilities.European journal of medical research · 2016Article
- Anti-glioma action of aloe emodin: the role of ERK inhibition.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to analyze guideline adherence in the timing of invasive management for myocardial infarction without persistent ST-segment elevation (NSTEMI) in two exemplary German centers, comparing an urban university maximum care facility and a rural regional primary care facility.
methodsAll patients diagnosed as having NSTEMI during 2013 were retrospectively enrolled in two centers: (1) site I, a maximum care center in an urban university setting, and (b) site II, a primary care center in a rural regional care setting. Data acquisition included time intervals from admission to invasive management, risk criteria, rate of intervention, and medical therapy.
resultsThe median time from admission to coronary angiography was 12.0 h (site I) or 17.5 h (site II; p = 0.17). Guideline-adherent timing was achieved in 88.1 % (site I) or 82.9 % (site II; p = 0.18) of cases. Intervention rates were high in both sites (site I-75.5 % vs. site II-75.3 %; p = 0.85). Adherence to recommendations of medical therapy was high and comparable between the two sites.
conclusionIn NSTEMI or high-risk acute coronary syndromes without persistent ST-segment elevation, guideline-adherent timing of invasive management was achieved in about 85 % of cases, and was comparable between urban maximum and rural primary care settings. Validation by the German Chest Pain Unit Registry including outcome analysis is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26407695What 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.