ArticleClinical cardiology2020
Prognostic value of admission electrocardiographic findings in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optical coherence tomography analysis of lesion characteristics and thrombus types in non ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2024Article
- Prognostic value of admission electrocardiographic findings in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.Clinical cardiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdmission electrocardiographic (ECG) findings of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) include transient ST-segment elevation (TSTE), ST-segment depression (STD), T-wave inversion (TWI), and no ischemic changes (NIC). HYPOTHESIS: This study aimed to assess the prognostic value of qualitative ECG findings at presentation and to clarify the influence of invasive treatment on the prognostic value of admission ECG findings.
methodsWe analyzed the Acute Coronary Syndrome Quality Improvement in Kerala (ACS QUIK) study post hoc. NSTEMI patients were included and classified into four groups per ECG findings. Study endpoints were in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates and major adverse events (MAE). We performed multivariate logistic regression, adjusting for covariates in the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk model, with subset analyses of patients treated with or without invasive management.
resultsSTD patients had significantly higher in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates/MAE than TWI patients, which had lower in-hospital mortality rate/MAE than the NIC group. TSTE patients had intermediate outcomes. In multivariate logistic regression using the TWI group as the reference, STD and NIC remained independently associated with worse outcomes. Subset analysis showed prognostic value of admission ECG in non-invasively managed but not in invasively managed patients.
conclusionsSTD was associated with adverse outcomes, TWI with benign prognoses. NIC should not be taken to indicate low risk. Qualitative analysis of admission ECG is suitable for rapid risk stratification of NSTMI patients at presentation. However, it may not be predictive of short-term outcomes of NSTEMI patients after invasive management.
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.