ReviewJournal of geriatric cardiology : JGC2017
Antithrombotic treatment tailoring and risk score evaluation in elderly patients diagnosed with an acute coronary syndrome.
Review in Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic value of frailty in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC geriatrics · 2019Pooled it
- Effects of Personalized Nursing plus Dietary Nursing Management on LP-PLA2, Hcy Levels, and Quality of Life in Elderly Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- Challenges and Controversies in the Management of ACS in Elderly Patients.Current cardiology reports · 2020Review
- Contemporary Revascularization Dilemmas in Older Adults.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2020Review
- Bleeding risk assessment in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Age is an important prognostic factor in the outcome of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). A substantial percentage of patients who experience ACS is more than 75 years old, and they represent the fastest-growing segment of the population treated in this setting. These patients present different patterns of responses to pharmacotherapy, namely, a higher ischemic and bleeding risk than do patients under 75 years of age. Our aim was to identify whether the currently available ACS ischemic and bleeding risk scores, which has been validated for the general population, may also apply to the elderly population. The second aim was to determine whether the elderly benefit more from a specific pharmacological regimen, keeping in mind the numerous molecules of antiplatelet and antithrombotic drugs, all validated in the general population. We concluded that the GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) risk score has been extensively validated in the elderly. However, the CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines) bleeding score has a moderate correlation with outcomes in the elderly. Until now, there have not been head-to-head scores that quantify the ischemic versus hemorrhagic risk or scores that use the same end point and timeline (e.g., ischemic death rate versus bleeding death rate at one month). We also recommend that the frailty score be considered or integrated into the current existing scores to better quantify the overall patient risk. With regard to medical treatment, based on the subgroup analysis, we identified the drugs that have the least adverse effects in the elderly while maintaining optimal efficacy.
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.