Trial reportPloS one2020
Unique referral system contributes to long-term net clinical benefits in patients undergoing secondary prevention therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention.
Trial report in PloS one, 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease, including ischemic heart disease, is a leading cause of death worldwide. Improvement of the secondary prevention of ischemic heart disease is necessary. We established a unique referral system to connect hospitals and outpatient clinics to coordinate care between general practitioners and cardiologists. Here, we evaluated the impact and long-term benefits of our system for ischemic heart disease patients undergoing secondary prevention therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention. This single-center retrospective observational study included 3658 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention at Shizuoka City Hospital between 2010 and 2019. After percutaneous coronary intervention, patients were considered conventional outpatients (conventional follow-up group) or subjected to our unique referral system (referral system group) at the attending cardiologist's discretion. To audit compliance of the treatment with the latest Japanese guidelines, we adopted a circulation-type referral system, whereby general practitioners needed to refer registered patients at least once a year, even if no cardiac events occurred. Clinical events in each patient were evaluated. Net adverse clinical events were defined as a combination of major adverse cardiac, cerebrovascular, and major bleeding events. There were 2241 and 1417 patients in the conventional follow-up and referral system groups, with mean follow-ups of 1255 and 1548 days and cumulative net adverse clinical event incidences of 27.6% and 21.5%, respectively. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the occurrence of net adverse clinical events was significantly lower in the referral system group than in the conventional follow-up group (log-rank: P<0.001). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that the unique referral system was a significant predictor of the net clinical benefits (hazard ratio: 0.56, 95% confidence interval: 0.37-0.83, P = 0.004). This result was consistent after propensity-score matching. In summary, our unique referral system contributed to long-term net clinical benefits for the secondary prevention of ischemic heart disease after percutaneous coronary intervention.
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.