ArticleThe American journal of cardiology2020
Risk Differences in Secondary Prevention Patients Who Present With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Implications of Guideline-Directed Cholesterol Management.
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. 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines for secondary prevention identified a group of "very high risk" (VHR) patients, those with multiple major atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events or 1 major ASCVD event with multiple high-risk features. A second group, "high risk" (HR), was defined as patients without any of the risk features in the VHR group. The incidence and relative risk differences of these 2 groups in a nontrial population has not been well characterized. Using the Northwestern Medicine Enterprise Data Warehouse, we compared the incidence of VHR and HR patients as well as their relative risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a single-center, large, academic, retrospective cohort study. Total 1,483 patients with acute coronary events from January 2014 to December 2016 were risk stratified into VHR and HR groups. International Classification of Diseases versions 9 and 10 were used to assess for composite events of unstable angina pectoris, non-ST elevation myocardial infarction, or ST-elevation myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or all-cause death with a median follow-up of 3.3 years. VHR patients were found to have 87 ± 5.4 composite events per 1,000 patient-years compared with HR patients who had 33 ± 5.1 events per 1,000 patient-years (p <0.001). VHR group had increased risk of future events as compared to the HR group (multivariable adjusted hazard ratio 1.66 [1.01 to 2.74], p = 0.047). In conclusion, these results support the stratification of patients into the VHR and HR risk groups for secondary prevention.
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.