Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29576967›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2018

Prognostic value of new-onset right bundle-branch block in acute myocardial infarction patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Juntao Wang, Hongxing Luo, Chunling Kong, Shujuan Dong, Jingchao Li, Haijia Yu, Yingjie Chu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Bundle branch block in cardiac arrest survivors without ischemic heart disease.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2023
    Article
  8. The ratio of QRS/RVFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. [High-risk electrocardiographic patterns in Patients with acute coronary syndrome].Archivos peruanos de cardiologia y cirugia cardiovascular
    Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Juntao WangDepartment of Cardiology, Zhengzhou University People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Hongxing LuoDepartment of Cardiology, Zhengzhou University People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5721-6302
Chunling KongDepartment of Cardiology, Zhengzhou University People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Shujuan DongDepartment of Cardiology, Henan Province People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Jingchao LiDepartment of Cardiology, Henan Province People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Haijia YuDepartment of Cardiology, Henan Province People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Yingjie ChuDepartment of Cardiology, Zhengzhou University People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Zhengzhou University · CNZhengzhou People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and bundle-branch block have poor prognoses. The new European Society of Cardiology guideline suggests a primary percutaneous coronary intervention strategy when persistent ischemic symptoms occur in patients with persistent ischemic symptoms and right bundle-branch block (RBBB), but the level of evidence is not high. In fact, the presence of RBBB may lead to the misdiagnosis of transmural ischemia and mask the early diagnosis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Moreover, new-onset RBBB is occasionally caused by AMI. Our study aims to investigate the prognostic value of new-onset RBBB in AMI. METHODS AND

resultsWe conducted a meta-analysis of studies to evaluate the prognostic value of RBBB in AMI patients. Of 914 primary records, five studies and 874 MI patients were included for meta-analysis. Compared with previous RBBB, AMI patients with new-onset RBBB had a higher risk of long-term mortality (RR, 1.66, 95% CI [1.31-2.09],

conclusionNew-onset RBBB is likely to increase long-term mortality, ventricular arrhythmia, and cardiogenic shock, but not heart failure in AMI patients. AMI patients with new-onset transient RBBB have a lower risk of short-term mortality than those with new-onset permanent RBBB. Revascularization therapies should be considered when persistent ischemic symptoms occur in patients with RBBB, especially new-onset RBBB.

Indexed as

Bundle-branch blockMeta-analysisMyocardial infarctionPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID29576967
PMCPMC5853603
OpenAlexW2794133001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.