Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29541904›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2018

Comparison of SYNTAX score II efficacy with SYNTAX score and TIMI risk score for predicting in-hospital and long-term mortality in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Yavuz Karabağ, Metin Çağdaş, Ibrahim Rencuzogullari, Süleyman Karakoyun, İnanç Artaç, Doğan İliş, Mahmut Yesin, Mesut Öterkus, Tayyar Gokdeniz, Cengiz Burak and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Cardiovascular imaging 2018 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Yavuz KarabağDepartment of Cardiology, Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey. yavuz_karabag@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8156-315X
Metin ÇağdaşDepartment of Cardiology, Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey.
Ibrahim RencuzogullariDepartment of Cardiology, Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey.
Süleyman KarakoyunDepartment of Cardiology, Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey.
İnanç ArtaçDepartment of Cardiology, Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey.
Doğan İlişDepartment of Cardiology, Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey.
Mahmut YesinDepartment of Cardiology, Kars Harakani State Hospital, Kars, Turkey.
Mesut ÖterkusDepartment of Anesthesia and Reanimation, Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey.
Tayyar GokdenizDepartment of Cardiology, Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Cengiz BurakDepartment of Cardiology, Midyat State Hospital, Mardin, Turkey.
Ibrahim Halil TanboğaDepartment of Cardiology, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

SYNTAX score II (SS-II) has a powerful prognostic accuracy in patients with stable complex coronary artery disease who have undergone revascularization; however, there is limited data regarding the prognosis of patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study is to examine both the predictive performance of SS-II in determining in-hospital and long term mortality of STEMI patients and to compare SYNTAX score (SS) and TIMI risk score (TRS). Consecutive 1912 STEMI patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (p-PCI) retrospectively reviewed, and the remaining 1708 patients constituted the study population after exclusion. The patients were divided into three groups according to increased SS-II value: low (n:562; SS-II ≤ 24.6); intermediate (n:563; 24.6 < SS-II < 34.4); and high tertile (n:583; SS-II ≥ 34.4). In-hospital and long term mortality rate from all causes (0 vs. 0.5 vs. 10.6% and 1.8 vs. 3.2 vs. 18.1% respectively, p ≤ 0.001) were significantly increased with SS-II tertiles and SS-II was found to be independent predictor of in-hospital and long term mortality (HR: 1.076 95% CI 1.060-1.092, p < 0.001) and (HR: 1.070 95% CI 1.050-1.090, p < 0.0001). The predictive power of SS-II, SS, and TRS were compared by ROC curve and decision curve analysis. SS-II surpassed SS and TRS in long-term and in-hospital mortality prediction. SS-II is a powerful tool to predict in-hospital and long-term mortality from all causes in STEMI patients treated with p-PCI.

Indexed as

AgedFemaleHospital MortalityHumansMaleMiddle AgedPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSeverity of Illness IndexST Elevation Myocardial InfarctionTreatment OutcomeIn-hospital and long-term mortalityPrimary percutaneous coronary interventionST segment elevation myocardial infarctionSYNTAX scoreSYNTAX score IITIMI risk

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.