ArticleClinical cardiology2015
The Contemporary Use of Angiography and Revascularization Among Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in the United States Compared With South Korea.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2015. 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.
- Invasive treatment strategy in patients aged 80 years or older with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a retrospective cohort study.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2022Article
- Current Status and Hospital-Level Differences in Care and Outcomes of Patients With Acute Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in China: Insights From China Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Invasive and antiplatelet treatment of patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Understanding and addressing the global risk-treatment paradox.Clinical cardiology · 2019Review
- Temporal trends and inequalities in coronary angiography utilization in the management of non-ST-Elevation acute coronary syndromes in the U.S.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPractice guidelines recommend an early invasive strategy for high-risk non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients, but international differences in the use of invasive strategies are unknown. HYPOTHESIS: Profiling NSTEMI patient management in the United States (U.S.) and South Korea could provide insight into how patients are triaged for an early invasive strategy in different health care environments and geographical regions.
methodsWe evaluated the use of angiography and revascularization for NSTEMI patients treated at revascularization-capable hospitals (2007-2010) in both the ACTION Registry-GWTG (U.S.: n = 133,835; 433 hospitals) and KAMIR/KorMI Registry (South Korea: n = 7,901; 72 hospitals).
resultsCompared with South Korean patients, U.S. NSTEMI patients more commonly had established cardiovascular risk factors, disease, and prior cardiovascular events and procedures. From 2007-2010, the use of angiography for NSTEMI patients rose steadily in both countries, but the use of revascularization only rose in South Korea. Patients from South Korea more commonly underwent angiography and revascularization. Percutaneous coronary intervention was the most common type of revascularization in both countries, but coronary artery bypass grafting was less common in South Korea. The use of both angiography and revascularization was incrementally lower with a higher predicted mortality risk for patients from both countries, but greater differences between low- and high-risk patients occurred in the U.S.
conclusionsThe profile, characteristics, and use of angiography and revascularization for NSTEMI patients in the U.S. vs South Korea differed substantially from 2007-2010, underscoring the heterogeneity of NSTEMI patients and treatment selection among different countries.
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.