ArticleCardiology journal2020
Mechanisms of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in patients with atrial fibrillation, prior stenting and long-standing chronic coronary syndrome.
Article in Cardiology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antithrombotic Therapy in Primary and Secondary Prevention of Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Intravascular Imaging Guidance for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Antithrombotic Management in AF Patients Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A European Perspective.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2023Review
- Therapeutic uncertainties: first finding of atrial fibrillation in acute coronary syndrome.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022Article
- To drop or not to drop the antiplatelet agent, that is the question for patients with atrial fibrillation and chronic coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.Cardiology journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal antithrombotic regimen for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic coronary syndromes beyond 1 year after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a matter of debate. For these patients, guidelines recommend oral anticoagulation (OAC) alone, but the risk of thrombotic complications remains a concern. The aim of this study was to characterize the incidence, presentation and use of antithrombotic therapy in patients with AF, prior stenting > 12 months and new ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).
methodsConsecutive patients were selected from an institutional registry over a 3-year period if they matched the following criteria: 1) STEMI undergoing primary PCI; 2) AF; 3) chronic coronary syndrome with prior stenting > 12 months.
resultsAmong 852 consecutive STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, the prevalence of AF was 4.1%, and 6 (0.9%) patients met all the inclusion criteria. Substantial heterogeneity in antithrombotic treatment for these patients was noted (e.g., OAC alone, OAC plus a single antiplatelet agent, no antithrombotic therapy). In 50% of patients, the STEMI episode was linked to a previously stented lesion or documented plaque.
conclusionsThis case review illustrates the wide heterogeneity in antithrombotic pharmacotherapy among AF patients presenting with STEMI > 12 months after PCI. The underlying reason for STEMI is only partly related to disease progression or stent-related events. This finding suggests that multiple mechanisms of recurrence may be advocated, and are not only limited to antithrombotic therapy but may be explained by the natural history of coronary artery disease in remote vessels.
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.