ArticleWorld journal of cardiology2020
Effectiveness and safety of antithrombotic strategies in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction.
Article in World 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, 1 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElderly patients represent a rapidly growing part of the population more susceptible to acute coronary syndromes and their complications. However, literature evidence is lacking in this clinical setting.
aimTo describe the clinical features, in-hospital management and outcomes of "elderly" patients with myocardial infarction treated with antiplatelet and/or anticoagulation therapy.
methodsThis study was a retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients older than 80 years admitted to the Division of Cardiology of St. Andrea Hospital of Vercelli from January 2018 to December 2018 due to ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Clinical and laboratory data were collected for each patient, as well as the prevalence of previous or in-hospital atrial fibrillation (AF). In-hospital management, consisting of an invasive or conservative strategy, and the anti-thrombotic therapy used are described. Outcomes evaluated at 1 year follow-up included an efficacy ischemic endpoint and a safety bleeding endpoint.
resultsOf the 105 patients enrolled (mean age 83.9 ± 3.6 years, 52.3% males), 68 (64.8%) were admitted due to NSTEMI and 37 (35.2%) due to STEMI. Among the STEMI patients, 34 (91.9%) underwent coronary angiography and all of them were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); among the NSTEMI patients, 42 (61.8%) were assigned to an invasive strategy and 16 (38.1%) of them underwent a PCI. No significant difference between the groups was found concerning the prevalence of previous or in-hospital de-novo AF. 10.5% of the whole population received triple antithrombotic therapy and 9.5% single antiplatelet therapy plus oral anticoagulation (OAC), with no significant difference between the subgroups, although a higher number of STEMI patients received dual antiplatelet therapy without OAC as compared with NSTEMI patients. A low rate of in-hospital death (5.7%) and 1-year cardiovascular death (3.3%) was registered. Seven (7.8%) patients experienced major adverse cardiovascular events, while the rate of minor and major bleeding at 1-year follow-up was 10% and 2.2%, respectively, with no difference between NSTEMI and STEMI patients.
conclusionIn this real-world study, a tailored evaluation of an invasive strategy and antithrombotic therapy resulted in a low rate of adverse events in elderly patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction.
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.