ArticleHerz2020
The German CPU registry: Comparison of smokers and nonsmokers.
Article in Herz, 2020. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Novel Demography-Based Approach to Define Patient-Specific Outflow Boundary Conditions in CT-Based FFR Computations.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 14 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChest pain is a major reason for admission to an internal emergency department, and smoking is a well-known risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this analysis is to illustrate the differences between smokers and nonsmokers presenting to German chest pain units (CPU) in regard to patient characteristics, CAD manifestation, treatment strategy, and prognosis.
methodsFrom December 2008 to March 2014, 13,902 patients who had a complete 3‑month follow-up were enrolled in the German CPU registry. The analysis comprised 5796 patients with ACS and documented smoking status.
resultsOf all the patients in the CPU registry, 35.2% were smokers. Compared with nonsmokers, they were 13.5 years younger (58.2 vs. 71.7 years, p < 0.001), predominantly men (77.1% vs. 65.2%, p < 0.001), and were more frequently diagnosed with single-vessel disease (32.1% vs. 25.2%) as well as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI; 23.8% vs. 15.5%, p < 0.001). Although the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) Risk Score for hospital mortality was lower in the group of smokers (106.1 vs. 123.3, p < 0.001), we did not observe any differences in CPU death (0.4% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.69) and CPU major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates (3.8% vs 2.9%, p = 0.073) between the groups. In the 3‑month follow-up, we documented higher mortality rates in the nonsmoker group (1.9% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.035) in correlation with the GRACE Risk Score (80.3 vs. 105.2, p < 0.001). MACE rates were similar during the follow-up (3.1% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.065).
conclusionObservations from the German CPU registry demonstrate that smoking is a strong predictor of acute CAD manifestation early in life, especially STEMI. In spite of a lower GRACE Risk Score and fewer comorbidities, smokers had a rate of hospital mortality similar to the older group of nonsmokers.
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.