Observational studyPloS one2018
Survival outcomes post percutaneous coronary intervention: Why the hype about stent type? Lessons from a healthcare system in India.
Observational study in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effects of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) adherence on survival in patients undergoing revascularization and the determinants of DAPT adherence.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2022Article
- Risk factors associated with major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events following percutaneous coronary intervention: a 10-year follow-up comparing random survival forest and Cox proportional-hazards model.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2021Article
- Application of Extreme Learning Machine in the Survival Analysis of Chronic Heart Failure Patients With High Percentage of Censored Survival Time.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
11 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A prospective, multicenter study was initiated by the Government of Maharashtra, India, to determine predictors of long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for coronary artery disease, and to compare the effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DESs) and bare-metal stents (BMSs) in patients undergoing PCI under government-funded insurance. The present analysis included 4595 patients managed between August 2012 and November 2016 at any of 110 participating centers. Using the classical multivariable regression and propensity-matching approach, we found age to be the most important predictor of 1-year mortality and target lesion revascularization at 1 year post-PCI. However, using machine learning methods to account for unmeasured confounders and bias in this large observational study, we determined total stent length and number of stents deployed as the most important predictors of 1-year survival, followed by age and employment status. The unadjusted death rates were 5.0% and 3.8% for the BMS and DES groups, respectively (p = 0.185, log-rank test). The rate of re-hospitalization (p<0.001) and recurrence of unstable angina (p = 0.08) was significantly lower for DESs than for BMSs. Increased use of DES after 2015 (following establishment of a price cap on DESs) was associated with a sharp decrease in adjusted hazard ratios of DESs versus BMSs (from 0.94 in 2013 to 0.58 in 2016), suggesting that high price was limiting DES use in some high-risk patients. Since stented length and stent number were the most important predictors of survival outcomes, adopting an ischemia-guided revascularization strategy is expected to help improve outcomes and reduce procedural costs. In the elderly, PCI should be reserved for cases where the benefits outweigh the higher risk of the procedure. As unemployed patients had poorer long-term outcomes, we expect that implementation of a post-PCI cardiovascular rehabilitation program may improve long-term outcomes.
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.