ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Prognosis of patients with coronary artery disease treated in different therapy units at department of cardiology: a retrospective cohort study.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ticagrelor as an Alternative Antiplatelet Therapy in Cardiac Patients Non-Sensitive to Aspirin.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronary artery disease (CAD) is a major health problem in global. Benefit from different care unit for various type of CAD is remaining unknown. We investigate if coronary care unit (CCU) reduces the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs).
method806 CAD patients including stable angina (SA) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who treated in department of cardiology were involved in the study as two groups. Each group involved two subgroups according to the therapy unit including CCU and normal unit. 12-48 months follow-up was carried out. The primary end point was all cause mortality.
resultsFor SA, death from any cause occurred in 1.0% of the patients in the normal group (1 of 108), as compared with 5.1% in the CCU group (3 of 59) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.164; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.017 to 1.580; P=0.118). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the two subgroups with respect to the risk of death (P=0.074), revascularization (P=0.660), stroke (P=0.497), heart failure (P=0.658) and hemorrhage (P=0.096). For ACS, death occurred in 1.9% of the patients in the normal subgroup (5 of 267), as compared with 1.3% in the CCU subgroup (5 of 372) (HR, 1.403; 95% CI, 0.406-4.846; P=0.593). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the two subgroups with respect to the risk of death (P=0.591), revascularization (P=0.996), stroke (P=0.425), heart failure (P=0.625).
conclusionCAD patients treated in CCU obtain little benefits compared with normal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26629060PMC4658949What 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.