ArticleHerz2016
On- versus off-hour care for patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in Germany : Exemplary results within the chest pain unit concept.
Article in Herz, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome with off-hour versus on-hour presentation: a subgroup analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2023Trial
- Association of Admission Time and Mortality in STEMI Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2022Article
- Use, timing and outcome of coronary angiography in patients with high-risk non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in daily clinical practice: insights from a 'real world' prospective registry.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to analyze differences in the timing of invasive management of patients with high-risk acute coronary syndrome without persistent ST-segment elevation (hr-NSTE-ACS) or myocardial infarction without persistent ST-segment elevation (NSTEMI) between on- and off-hours in a German chest pain unit (CPU). PATIENTS AND
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 160 NSTEMI patients in the study, who were admitted to two German CPUs in 2013. Patients presenting on weekdays between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. were compared with patients presenting during off-hours. Data analysis included time intervals from admission to invasive management (goals: for hr-NSTE-ACS, <2 h; for NSTEMI, <24 h) and the resulting guideline adherence.
resultsGuideline-adherent timing of an invasive strategy did not differ significantly between the on-hour (6.5 h [3.0-22.0 h], 79.9 %) and off-hour groups (10.5 h [2.0-20.0 h], 75.3 %; p = 0.94), without additional significant differences between admissions during off-hours Monday to Thursday and weekends (10.0 h [2.0-19.0 h], 75.6 % vs. 7.5 h [2.0-20.0 h], 76.2 %; p = 0.96).
conclusionOur exemplary experience in two different German CPUs demonstrates adequate timing of coronary catheterization in over 75 % of cases, irrespective of admission during on- or off-hours. Nationwide validation of our findings by the German CPU registry is mandatory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27193907What 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.