ReviewJournal of geriatric cardiology : JGC2019
Invasive strategy in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome in 2018: close to the truth?
Review in Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC, 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.
- Extended use of dual antiplatelet therapy among older adults with acute coronary syndromes and associated variables: a cohort study.Thrombosis journal · 2023Article
- Effectiveness and safety of antithrombotic strategies in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction.World journal of cardiology · 2020Article
- Residual SYNTAX Score and One-Year Outcome in Elderly Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome.CJC open · 2020Article
- Elderly patients with acute coronary syndromes: a continuous tsunami.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Elderly population constitutes an increasingly larger proportion of patients admitted for acute coronary syndromes (ACS). The optimal management of ACS in these patients is still a challenge due to their clinical peculiarities and the paucity of specific data, and they have been traditionally managed more conservatively mainly based on subjective criteria. In ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction urgent reperfusion is the standard of care and there is no upper age limit. In non-ST segment elevation acute myocardial infarction evidence is controversial, incomplete and mainly focused on chronological age. While a strict conservative strategy should be avoided, routine invasive strategy may reduce the occurrence of myocardial infarction and need for revascularization at follow-up with no established benefit in terms of mortality. Clinical characteristics associated with aging, such as comorbidities and frailty, further discriminate patient's risk beyond age. Evidence is scarce, but it suggests that these features may modulate the benefit of invasive strategy in this population. Ongoing trials should clarify the optimal management of ACS based on these parameters.
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.