Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33325826›Full record

ArticleInteractive journal of medical research2020

Time to Treatment and In-Hospital Major Adverse Cardiac Events Among Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Who Underwent Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) According to the 24/7 Primary PCI Service Registry in Iran: Cross-Sectional Study.

Younes Nozari, Babak Geraiely, Kian Alipasandi, Seyedeh Hamideh Mortazavi, Negar Omidi, Hassan Aghajani, Alireza Amirzadegan, Hamidreza Pourhoseini, Mojtaba Salarifar, Mohammad Alidoosti and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interactive journal of medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Younes NozariDepartment of Interventional Cardiology, Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1980-5824
Babak GeraielyDepartment of Interventional Cardiology, Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6695-7751
Kian AlipasandiDepartment of Cardiology, School of Medicine, Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5717-8238
Seyedeh Hamideh MortazaviDepartment of Cardiology, School of Medicine, Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8167-2241
Negar OmidiDepartment of Cardiology, Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2344-1661
Hassan AghajaniDepartment of Interventional Cardiology, Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5064-9623
Alireza AmirzadeganDepartment of Interventional Cardiology, Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1751-019X
Hamidreza PourhoseiniDepartment of Interventional Cardiology, Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2397-8525
Mojtaba SalarifarDepartment of Interventional Cardiology, Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6422-8333
Mohammad AlidoostiDepartment of Interventional Cardiology, Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5927-6376
Ali-Mohammad Haji-ZeinaliDepartment of Interventional Cardiology, Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5644-3917
Ebrahim NematipourDepartment of Interventional Cardiology, Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0472-0286
Mahin NomaliDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0773-4977

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPerforming primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as a preferred reperfusion strategy for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) may be associated with major adverse cardiocerebrovascular events (MACCEs). Thus, timely primary PCI has been emphasized in order to improve outcomes. Despite guideline recommendations on trying to reduce the door-to-balloon time to <90 minutes in order to reduce mortality, less attention has been paid to other components of time to treatment, such as the symptom-to-balloon time, as an indicator of the total ischemic time, which includes the symptom-to-door time and door-to-balloon time, in terms of clinical outcomes of patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI.

objectiveWe aimed to determine the association between each component of time to treatment (ie, symptom-to-door time, door-to-balloon time, and symptom-to-balloon time) and in-hospital MACCEs among patients with STEMI who underwent primary PCI.

methodsIn this observational study, according to a prospective primary PCI 24/7 service registry, adult patients with STEMI who underwent primary PCI in one of six catheterization laboratories of Tehran Heart Center from November 2015 to August 2019, were studied. The primary outcome was in-hospital MACCEs, which was a composite index consisting of cardiac death, revascularization (ie, target vessel revascularization/target lesion revascularization), myocardial infarction, and stroke. It was compared at different levels of time to treatment (ie, symptom-to-door and door-to-balloon time <90 and ≥90 minutes, and symptom-to-balloon time <180 and ≥180 minutes). Data were analyzed using SPSS software version 24 (IBM Corp), with descriptive statistics, such as frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation, and statistical tests, such as chi-square test, t test, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, and with a significance level of <.05 and 95% CIs for odds ratios (ORs).

resultsData from 2823 out of 3204 patients were analyzed (mean age of 59.6 years, SD 11.6 years; 79.5% male [n=2243]; completion rate: 88.1%). Low proportions of symptom-to-door time ≤90 minutes and symptom-to-balloon time ≤180 minutes were observed among the study patients (579/2823, 20.5% and 691/2823, 24.5%, respectively). Overall, 2.4% (69/2823) of the patients experienced in-hospital MACCEs, and cardiac death (45/2823, 1.6%) was the most common cardiac outcome. In the univariate analysis, the symptom-to-balloon time predicted in-hospital MACCEs (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.4; P=.03), while the symptom-to-door time (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.7-2.6; P=.34) and door-to-balloon time (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.6-1.8, P=.77) were not associated with in-hospital MACCEs. In the multivariate analysis, only symptom-to-balloon time ≥180 minutes was associated with in-hospital MACCEs and was a predictor of in-hospital MACCEs (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1-5.2; P=.04).

conclusionsA longer symptom-to-balloon time was the only component associated with higher in-hospital MACCEs in the present study. Efforts should be made to shorten the symptom-to-balloon time in order to improve in-hospital MACCEs. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/13161.

Indexed as

Iranpercutaneous coronary interventionregistriesST-segment elevation myocardial infarctiontime to treatment

Identifiers

PMID33325826
PMCPMC7773509

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.