ArticleThe American journal of cardiology2020
Improving Care Pathways for Acute Coronary Syndrome: Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Article in The American journal of cardiology, 2020. 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.
- Cost reduction associated with transradial access in percutaneous coronary intervention: A report from a Japanese nationwide registry.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) admissions are common and costly. The association between comprehensive ACS care pathways, outcomes, and costs are lacking. From 434,172 low-risk, uncomplicated ACS patients eligible for early discharge (STEMI 35%, UA/NSTEMI 65%) from the Premier database, we identified ACS care pathways, by stratifying low-risk, uncomplicated STEMI and UA/NSTEMI patients by access site for PCI (trans-radial intervention [TRI] vs transfemoral intervention [TFI]) and by length of stay (LOS). Associations with costs and outcomes (death, bleeding, acute kidney injury, and myocardial infarction at 1-year) were tested using hierarchical, mixed-effects regression, and projections of cost savings with change in care pathways were obtained using modeling. In low-risk uncomplicated STEMI patients, compared with TFI and LOS ≥3 days, a strategy of TRI with LOS <3 days and TFI with LOS <3 days were associated with cost savings of $6,206 and $4,802, respectively. Corresponding cost savings for UA/NSTEMI patients were $7,475 and $6,169, respectively. These care-pathways did not show an excess risk of adverse outcomes. We estimated that >$300 million could be saved if prevalence of the TRI with LOS <3 days and TFI with LOS <3 days strategies are modestly increased to 20% and 70%, respectively. In conclusion, we demonstrate the potential opportunity of cost savings by repositioning ACS care pathways in low-risk and uncomplicated ACS patients, toward transradial access and a shorter LOS without an increased risk of adverse outcomes.
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.