Trial reportTexas Heart Institute journal2015
Intensive Statin Therapy in NSTE-ACS Patients Undergoing PCI: Clinical and Biochemical Effects.
Trial report in Texas Heart Institute journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of high-intensity statin on coronary microvascular dysfunction.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Pooled it
- High-intensity statin therapy yields better outcomes in acute coronary syndrome patients: a meta-analysis involving 26,497 patients.Lipids in health and disease · 2020Pooled it
- Efficacy Evaluation of High-Dose Atorvastatin Pretreatment in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Africa: A Systematic Review of Associated Outcomes.Cureus · 2025Review
- Observational
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
Early initiation of statin therapy in acute coronary syndrome patients has a favorable prognostic impact because of its anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic properties. In this study, we explored the effect of atorvastatin-loading, followed by intensive atorvastatin therapy, on clinical and biochemical outcomes in non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome patients who were scheduled for percutaneous coronary intervention. We prospectively enrolled 140 patients (mean age, 56 ± 9 years, 68% men). Once eligible, patients were randomly assigned to receive either a moderate 20-mg daily dose of atorvastatin (Group A) or a 160-mg loading dose followed by an intensified 80-mg daily dose (Group B). High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) levels were recorded before and after intervention. Evaluation after 6 months included hs-CRP levels, left ventricular systolic function, and major adverse cardiac events. We found no significant difference between the 2 groups in regard to the interventional data. However, blood sampling after coronary intervention, and again 6 months later, revealed a significant decline in mean hs-CRP level among Group B patients (P < 0.001). Moreover, patients in Group B manifested a higher left ventricular ejection fraction than did patients in Group A (P < 0.05). After 6 months, we found no significant difference between groups in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events. We conclude that intensive atorvastatin therapy in non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome patients is associated with lower hs-CRP levels and with higher left ventricular ejection fraction after 6 months, with no significant impact on adverse cardiac events.
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.