Observational studyMedicine2019
Selection of percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction in tertiary hospital.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate the status of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and analyze the reasons for not receiving PCI.A cohort of 387 consecutive hospitalized AMI patients aged ≥80 years were recruited from 2005 to 2014. Their clinical data were collected and analyzed.Among 387 elderly patients with AMI (190 men and 197 women, mean age 84.1 ± 3.9 years), there were 171 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 216 patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). The emergency and elective PCI treatment rate was 40.6% and 12.1%, respectively, in patients with STEMI; and 1% and 18%, respectively, in patients with NSTEMI. PCI treatment rate of elderly AMI patients enrolled after 2009 showed no significant difference compared to that before 2009 (P > .05). The in-hospital mortality decreased significantly in PCI treatment group. After adjustment for age, sex, and other factors, PCI treatment was identified as the independent protective factors for in-hospital mortality (odds ratio = 0.323, 95% confidence interval 0.147-0.710, P = .005). The main influence factors for not receiving PCI treatment were hemorrhage, severe renal dysfunction, infection, or severe anemia-associated complications, whereas delayed treatment was the important reason for patients not undergoing emergency PCI.PCI treatment is the independent protective factor for in-hospital mortality of elderly patients with AMI. Due to various complications, PCI treatment rate is still low in elderly patients with AMI and has not been improved recently. Paying attention to performing PCI treatment for elderly patients with AMI has positive significance.
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.