Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30791799›Full record

Observational studyJournal of the American Heart Association2019

Comparison of Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Elderly Patients, Including 10 628 Nonagenarians: Insights From a Japanese Nationwide Registry (J-PCI Registry).

Yohei Numasawa, Taku Inohara, Hideki Ishii, Kyohei Yamaji, Shun Kohsaka, Mitsuaki Sawano, Masaki Kodaira, Shiro Uemura, Kazushige Kadota, Tetsuya Amano and 2 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

12 authors.

Yohei Numasawa1 Department of Cardiology Japanese Red Cross Ashikaga Hospital Ashikaga Japan.
Taku Inohara2 Duke Clinical Research Institute Duke University Medical Center Durham NC.
Hideki Ishii4 Department of Cardiology Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine Nagoya Japan.
Kyohei Yamaji5 Department of Cardiology Kokura Memorial Hospital Kitakyushu Japan.
Shun Kohsaka3 Department of Cardiology Keio University School of Medicine Tokyo Japan.
Mitsuaki Sawano3 Department of Cardiology Keio University School of Medicine Tokyo Japan.
Masaki Kodaira1 Department of Cardiology Japanese Red Cross Ashikaga Hospital Ashikaga Japan.
Shiro Uemura6 Department of Cardiology Kawasaki Medical School Kurashiki Japan.
Kazushige Kadota7 Department of Cardiology Kurashiki Central Hospital Kurashiki Japan.
Tetsuya Amano8 Department of Cardiology Aichi Medical University Nagakute Japan.
Masato Nakamura9 Division of Cardiovascular Medicine Toho University Ohashi Medical Center Tokyo Japan.
J‐PCI Registry Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Scarce data exist about the outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention ( PCI ) in old patients. This study sought to provide an overview of PCI in elderly patients, especially nonagenarians, in a Japanese large prospective nationwide registry. Methods and Results We analyzed 562 640 patients undergoing PCI (≥60 years of age) from 1018 Japanese hospitals between 2014 and 2016 in the J-PCI (Japanese percutaneous coronary intervention) registry. Among them, 10 628 patients (1.9%), including 6780 (1.2%) with acute coronary syndrome ( ACS ) and 3848 (0.7%) with stable coronary artery disease, were ≥90 years of age. We investigated differences in characteristics and in-hospital outcomes among sexagenarians, septuagenarians, octogenarians, and nonagenarians. Older patients were more frequently women and had a greater frequency of heart failure and chronic kidney disease than younger patients. In addition, older patients had a higher rate of in-hospital mortality, cardiac tamponade, cardiogenic shock after PCI , and bleeding complications requiring blood transfusion. Nonagenarians had the highest risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 3.60; 95% CI , 3.10-4.18 in ACS ; odds ratio , 6.24; 95% CI, 3.82-10.20 in non- ACS ) and bleeding complications ( odds ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.35-2.36 in ACS ; odds ratio , 2.70; 95% CI, 1.68-4.35 in non- ACS ) when referenced to sexagenarians. More important, transradial intervention was an inverse independent predictor of both in-hospital mortality and bleeding complications. Conclusions Older patients, especially nonagenarians, carried a greater risk of in-hospital death and bleeding compared with younger patients after PCI . Transradial intervention might contribute to risk reduction for periprocedural complications in elderly patients undergoing PCI .

Indexed as

Percutaneous Coronary InterventionAgedAged, 80 and overCoronary Artery DiseaseFemaleHealth StatusHemorrhageHospital MortalityHumansJapanMaleMiddle AgedRegistriesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTime Factorsnonagenariansoctogenarianspercutaneous coronary interventiontransradial intervention

Identifiers

PMID30791799
PMCPMC6474917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.