ArticleCardiology research and practice2020
Managing Nonagenarians with Acute Myocardial Infarction: Invasive versus Conservative Treatment.
Article in Cardiology research and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and Biological Markers of Frailty Syndrome in Patients Undergoing Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Outcomes of Nonagenarians with Acute Myocardial Infarction with or without Coronary Intervention.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Serum Complement C1q Activity Is Associated With Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease.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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLimited data are available to support an invasive treatment strategy in nonagenarians with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We aimed to investigate whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is beneficial in this frail population.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 41 nonagenarians with AMI (both ST-segment-elevation and non-ST-segment-elevation MI) between 2006 and 2015 in a single center. We assessed 30-day and one-year mortality rates according to the treatment strategy.
resultsAmong study subjects, 24 (59%) were treated with PCI (PCI group) and 17 (41%) were treated with conservative management (medical treatment group) per the clinician's discretion. The median follow-up duration was 30 months (0-74 months). Thirty-day mortality was lower in the PCI group than in the medical treatment group (17% vs. 65%;
conclusionMortality after AMI was decreased in correlation with the invasive strategy relative to the conservative strategy, even in nonagenarians. Regardless of age, PCI should be considered in AMI patients. However, large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to support our conclusion.
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.