ArticleMedicine2020
Clinical presentation and treatment of acute coronary syndrome as well as 1-year survival of patients hospitalized due to cancer: A 7-year experience of a nonacademic center.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Cancer.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Impact of Active and Historical Cancers on the Management and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicating Cardiogenic Shock.Texas Heart Institute journal · 2022Article
- Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome in Cancer Patients: It's High Time We Dealt with It.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Article
- The Pharmacological Approach to Oncologic Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Characteristics, Management, and Outcomes of Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients with Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with cancer constitutes a therapeutic challenge. We aimed to assess the clinical presentation and management of ACS as well as 1-year survival in patients hospitalized for cancer.This retrospective study included patients hospitalized between 2012 and 2018 in a nonacademic center. The inclusion criteria were diagnosis of active cancer and ACS recognized using standard criteria. Patients were assessed with respect to invasive or conservative ACS strategy. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, and the secondary endpoint was cardiovascular mortality during 1-year follow-up.We screened 25,165 patients, of whom 36 (0.14%) had ACS (mean [SD] age, 71.9 [9.8] years). The most common presentation was non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (61% of patients). Coronary angiography was performed in 47% of patients, while 53% were treated conservatively. Overall, the primary endpoint occurred in 67% of patients and secondary endpoint in 28% during follow-up. The predictors of better outcome in a univariate analysis were invasive strategy, lack of metastases, aspirin use, and no cardiogenic shock. Invasive treatment and aspirin use remained significant predictors of better survival when adjusted for the presence of metastases (hazard ratio [HR] 0.37, confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.92 and HR 0.39, CI 0.16-0.94, respectively) and ineligibility for cancer treatment (HR 0.37, CI 0.15-0.93 and HR 0.30, CI 0.12-0.73, respectively).The incidence of ACS in cancer patients is low but 1-year mortality rates are high. Guideline-recommended management was frequently underused. Our results suggest that invasive approach and aspirin use are associated with better survival regardless of cancer stage and eligibility for cancer treatment.
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.