ArticleActa Cardiologica Sinica2015
Effects of Door-to-Balloon Times on Outcomes in Taiwanese Patients Receiving Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Report of Taiwan Acute Coronary Syndrome Full Spectrum Registry.
Article in Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rationale and Study Design of the TSOC-Fully Organized Registry for the Management of Symptomatic ACS Study (T-FORMOSA Study).Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2023Article
- 2020 Focused Update of the 2012 Guidelines of the Taiwan Society of Cardiology for the Management of ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2020Review
- The Application and Future of Big Database Studies in Cardiology: A Single-Center Experience.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2017Review
- The Management and Prognostic Factors of Acute Coronary Syndrome: Evidence from the Taiwan Acute Coronary Syndrome Full Spectrum Registry.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2017Review
- Is Shorter Door-to-Balloon Time Associated with a Double Risk of Major Adverse Cardiac Events? Use of Drug-Eluting Stents Should Be Considered.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2016Article
- Article
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 at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe impact of door-to-balloon (DTB) time on patient outcomes is unclear in a Taiwanese population receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The study aimed to investigate the relationship between stratified DTB times and outcomes through analysis of the database from the Taiwan acute coronary syndrome full spectrum registry.
methodsRelevant data were collected from case report forms of patients receiving primary PCI who were categorized as group 1, 2, 3, and 4 according to the DTB time < 45, 45-90, 91-135, and > 135 minutes, respectively. The differences were analyzed by using ANOVA and Kaplan-Meier analyses.
resultsThere were significant variations in DTB times at baseline, which included patients salvaged at centers, patients with prior cardiovascular disease, and those patients with different coronary artery flows (p < 0.01) separated into 4 groups (n = 189, 443, 299, and 401, respectively). The in-hospital adverse event rates were identical among the 4 groups except for a higher rate of acute renal failure and a longer hospital stay observed in group 4 (p < 0.01). The results showed no decrease in the incidences of repeated revascularization, major adverse cardiac event, or cardiovascular composite at 1 year in group 1.
conclusionsThis study suggested that the DTB time is not a good determinant for outcomes in Taiwanese patients receiving primary PCI. KEY WORDS: Acute myocardial infarction; Cardiovascular outcome; Door-to-balloon time; Myocardial ischemia; Percutaneous coronary intervention.
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.