ArticleJournal of geriatric cardiology : JGC2017
Determinants of invasive strategy in elderly patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction.
Article 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 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.
- Comparison between Invasive Intervention and Conservative Treatment in Patients with In-Hospital Myocardial Infarctions: Results from the Regional Myocardial Infarction Registry of Saxony-Anhalt (RHESA) Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Age, knowledge, preferences, and risk tolerance for invasive cardiac care.American heart journal · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKnowledge gaps across literature prevent current guidelines from providing the profile of elderly patients most likely to derive benefit from invasive strategy (IS) in non ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Furthermore, the benefit of IS in a real-world elderly population with NSTEMI remains unclear. The aims of this study were to determine factors that lead the cardiologist to opt for an IS in elderly patients with NSTEMI, and to assess the impact of IS on the 6-month all-cause mortality.
methodsThis multicenter prospective study enrolled all consecutive patients aged ≥ 75 years old who presented a NSTEMI and were hospitalized in cardiology intensive care unit between February 2014 and February 2015. Patients were compared on the basis of reperfusion strategy (invasive or conservative) and living status at six months, in order to determine multivariate predictors of the realization of an IS and multivariate predictors of 6-month mortality.
resultsA total of 141 patients were included; 87 (62%) underwent an IS. The strongest independent determinants of IS were younger age [odds ratio (OR): 0.85, 95%-confidence interval (CI): 0.78-0.92;
conclusionsIn real-world elderly patients with NSTEMI, younger patients with fewer comorbidities profited more often from an IS. However, IS did not modify 6-month all-cause mortality.
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.