Observational studyClinical cardiology2021
Appropriateness of gastrointestinal prophylaxis use during hospitalization in patients with acute myocardial infarction: Analysis from the China Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry.
Observational study in Clinical cardiology, 2021. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving use of proton pump inhibitors with dual antiplatelet therapy in patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome.BMJ open quality · 2022Article
- Appropriateness of gastrointestinal prophylaxis use during hospitalization in patients with acute myocardial infarction: Analysis from the China Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry.Clinical cardiology · 2021Observational
- The Clinical Impact of Proton Pump Inhibitors When Co-Administered With Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Having Acute Myocardial Infarction With Low Risk of Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Insights From the China Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe current status of gastrointestinal prophylaxis (GIP) usage and its effects on hospitalized acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients is not clear. We investigate the appropriateness of GIP usage and its relationship with clinical events in China. HYPOTHESIS: Appropriate use of GIP is not associated with increased adverse outcomes.
methodsFrom January 2013 to September 2014, a total of 24 001 consecutive patients from 108 hospitals with AMI in China Acute Myocardial Infarction (CAMI) registry were analyzed. The appropriateness of GIP was evaluated using the current American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association (ACCF/AHA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines. The primary endpoint was in-hospital gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), while the secondary endpoints were in-hospital and 2-year follow-up net adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (NACCE). Multivariate logistic regression analysis and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the effect of appropriate GIP.
resultsThere were 16 413 (68.38%) AMI patients co-medicated with GIP. Among 108 involved hospitals, only 35 (32.4%) hospitals prescribed more than 50% appropriate GIP. Totally, 59.7% (14 340) AMI patients received inappropriate GIP. Inappropriate GIP use was independently associated with use of GPIIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Moreover, appropriate GIP use was associated with decreased GIB risk (OR: 0.692, 95% CI: 0.507-0.944, P = .0202) during hospitalization, while not with increased in-hospital and 2-year follow-up NACCE.
conclusionThe use of GIP is prevalent in patients with AMI in China but only 40% of hospitalized patients received appropriate GIP. Appropriate prophylactic therapy was associated with decreased GIB risk during hospitalization.
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.