ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2016
Timing of intervention in high-risk non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes in PCI versus non-PCI centres : Sub-group analysis of the ELISA-3 trial.
Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Direct admission versus interhospital transfer for revascularisation in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.Clinical cardiology · 2023Article
- NSTEMI treatment: should we always follow the guidelines?Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2019Article
- Practice of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction care in the Netherlands during four snapshot weeks with the National Cardiovascular Database Registry for Acute Coronary Syndrome.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2017Article
- Evaluation of safety and efficacy of elective PCI in patients with cardiac insufficiency.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2017Article
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo compare the effect of timing of intervention in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus non-PCI centres. METHODS AND
resultsA post-hoc sub-analysis was performed of the ELISA III trial, a randomised multicentre trial investigating outcome of early (< 12 h) versus late (> 48 h) angiography and revascularisation in 542 patients with high-risk NSTE-ACS. 90 patients were randomised in non-PCI centres and tended to benefit more from an early invasive strategy than patients included in the PCI centre (relative risk 0.23 vs. 0.85 [p for interaction = 0.089] for incidence of the combined primary endpoint of death, reinfarction and recurrent ischaemia after 30 days of follow-up). This was largely driven by reduction in recurrent ischaemia. In non-PCI centres, patients randomised to the late group had a 4 and 7 day longer period until PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively. This difference was less pronounced in the PCI centre.
conclusionsThis post-hoc analysis from the ELISA-3 trial suggests that NSTE-ACS patients initially hospitalised in non-PCI centres show the largest benefit from early angiography and revascularisation, associated with a shorter waiting time to revascularisation. Improved patient logistics and transfer between non-PCI and PCI centres might therefore result in better clinical outcome.
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.