ArticlePloS one2020
Feasibility of management of hemodynamically stable patients with acute myocardial infarction following primary percutaneous coronary intervention in the general ward settings.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and Cost Implications of General Ward versus Coronary Care Unit Admission After PCI for Stable STEMI: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Volume-outcome relationships for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in acute myocardial infarction.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2024Article
- Volume-Outcome Relationships for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Myocardial Infarction.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Article
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
backgroundAlthough current guidelines recommend admission to the intensive/coronary care unit (ICU/CCU) for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI), routine use of the CCU in uncomplicated patients with acute MI remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate the safety of management in the general ward (GW) of hemodynamically stable patients with acute MI after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
methodsUsing a large nationwide administrative database, a cohort of 19426 patients diagnosed with acute MI in 52 hospitals where a CCU was available were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with mechanical cardiac support and Killip classification 4, and those without primary PCI on admission were excluded. A total of 5736 patients were included and divided into the CCU (n = 3488) and GW (n = 2248) groups according to the type of hospitalization room after primary PCI. Propensity score matching was performed, and 1644 pairs were matched. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality at 30 days.
resultsThe CCU group had a higher rate of Killip classification 3 and ambulance use than the GW group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of in-hospital mortality within 30 days among the matched subjects. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard model analysis among unmatched patients supported the findings (hazard ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.91, p = 0.67).
conclusionsThe use of the GW was not associated with higher in-hospital mortality in hemodynamically stable patients with acute MI after primary PCI. It may be feasible for the selected patients to be directly admitted to the GW after primary PCI.
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.