ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2020
The efficacy and safety of evaluating elderly patients using a comprehensive diagnostic protocol via a chest pain unit.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Elderly patients are often excluded from a chest pain unit (CPU)-based evaluation of chest pain due to concern about adverse events and poorer outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of thoroughly evaluating elderly patients ≥ 65 years of age presented with acute chest pain via a CPU. We evaluated 1220 consecutive patients admitted to our CPU, and stratified them according to age: those over and those under 65 years. Patients were evaluated for outcomes during hospitalization and for a composite endpoint at 60 days post discharge which included: recurrent hospitalization due to chest pain, need for coronary revascularization, acute coronary syndrome, and death. Overall, 241 (20%) patients were in the ≥ 65-year-old group and 979 (80%) patients in the group < 65 years of age. Older patients were more likely to be female, have more co-morbidities, and a history of prior coronary artery disease. There was no difference between the two groups regarding in-hospital course, including hospitalization in the CPU (9.5% vs. 11.6%, p = 0.37), coronary angiography (7.9% vs. 9.8%, p = 0.37), and revascularization performed during the evaluation period (4.5% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.42). Of those discharged, the primary endpoint at 60 days was observed in 11 (1.5%) and 7 (3.9%) patients in those under and over 65 years, respectively, (p = 0.13). No mortalities were recorded. Comprehensive evaluation via a CPU of patients who are ≥ 65 years of age is feasible and safe with in-hospital and short-term outcomes compared to their younger counterparts.
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.