ArticleIndian heart journal2017
A comparison of rescue and primary percutaneous coronary interventions for acute ST elevation myocardial infarction.
Article in Indian heart journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observational
- Effects of graded emergency nursing on resuscitation outcomes, prognosis, and nursing satisfaction in patients with acute myocardial infarction.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo perform a comparative analysis of in-hospital results obtained from patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), who underwent rescue or primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The aim is to determine rescue PCI as a practical option for patients with no immediate access to primary PCI.
methodsFrom the Cardiology PCI Clinic of the National Hospital of Sri Lanka (NHSL), we selected all consecutive patients presenting with acute STEMI </=24h door-to-balloon delay for primary PCI and </=72h door-to-balloon delay, (90min after failed thrombolysis) for rescue PCI, from March 2013 to April 2015 and their in-hospital results were analyzed, comparing rescue and primary PCI patients.
resultsWe evaluated 159 patients; 78 underwent rescue PCI and 81 underwent primary PCI. The culprit left anterior descending (LAD) vessel (76.9% vs. 58.8%; P=0.015) was more prevalent in rescue than in primary patients. Thrombus aspiration was less frequent in rescue group (19.2% vs. 40.7%; p=0.004). The degree of moderate-to-severe left ventricular dysfunction reflected by the ejection fraction <40% (24.3% vs. 23.7%; P=0.927) and prevalence of multivessel disease (41.0% vs. 43.8%; P=0.729) revealed no significant difference. Coronary stents were implanted at similar rates in both strategies (96.2% vs. 92.6%; P=0.331). Procedural success (97.4% vs. 97.5%; P=0.980) and mortality rates (5.1% vs. 3.8%; P=0.674), were similar in the rescue and primary groups.
conclusionIn-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) are similar in both rescue and primary intervention groups, supporting the former as a practical option for patients with no immediate access to PCI facilities.
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.