Observational studyMedicine2019
A comparison of the impact of current smoking on 2-year major clinical outcomes of first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction: Data from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry.
Observational study in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Frequency, Risk Factors, and Outcome of Definite Stent Thrombosis: A Single-Center Experience.Cureus · 2022Article
- Sex difference after acute myocardial infarction patients with a history of current smoking and long-term clinical outcomes: Results of KAMIR Registry.Cardiology journal · 2022Article
- Primary percutaneous coronary intervention in CAD patients: A comparison of major adverse cardiovascular events of second- and third-generation drug-eluting stents.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Real-World Three-Year Clinical Outcomes of Biolimus-Eluting Stents versus Other Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients: Data from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR).Journal of interventional cardiology · 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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are limited studies comparing the effect of current smoking on first-generation (1G)-drug-eluting stents (DES) and second-generation (2G)-DES in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients after successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We investigated the clinical impact of current smoking on 2-year clinical outcomes between the 1G-DES and the 2G-DES in AMI patients after PCI.A total of 11,812 AMI patients with a history of current smoking who underwent successful PCI with 1G-DES (n = 4622) or 2G-DES (n = 7190) were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as all-cause death, recurrent AMI (re-MI) or any revascularization (target lesion revascularization [TLR], target vessel revascularization [TVR], and non-TVR). The secondary endpoint was the incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST).Two propensity score-matched (PSM) groups (3900 pairs, n = 7800, C-statistic = .708) were generated. After PSM analysis, the 2-year cumulative incidence of MACE was significantly higher in the 1G-DES group compared with the 2G-DES (9.4% vs 7.4%, Log-rank P = .002; hazard ratio, 1.281; 95% confidence interval, 1.097-1.495; P = .002) and this increased incidence of MACE was associated with the increased incidence of any revascularization including TLR, TVR, and non-TVR. However, the incidences of ST, all-cause death, re-MI were not significantly different during 2-year follow-up period.2G-DES was the preferred treatment strategy for AMI patients with a history of current smoking to reduce MACE especially, any revascularization rate rather than 1G-DES in this study.
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.