ArticleBMJ open2021
Absolute cardiovascular disease risk score and pharmacotherapy at the time of admission in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome due to coronary artery disease in a single Australian tertiary centre: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe (1) absolute cardiovascular disease risk (ACVDR) scores in patients presenting to hospital with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and (2) proportions of these patients on guideline-recommended pharmacotherapy according to their ACVDR score.
designCross-sectional study.
settingSingle-site tertiary centre hospital, Queensland, Australia over a 12-month period.
participantsPatients >18 years of age presenting to hospital with ACS due to coronary artery disease (CAD) confirmed by angiography. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of patients without prior history of CVD with a high ACVDR score, and of patients with a prior history of CVD, who are on guideline-recommended pharmacotherapy.
results527 ACS patients were included of whom the mean age was 63 years and 75% were male. Overall, 66% (350) had no prior CVD and 34% (177) patients had prior CVD.In patients with no prior CVD, the proportions of patients with low, intermediate and high CVD risk scores were 41%, 24% and 36%. In the no prior CVD, high-risk patient group, 48% were on no preventative pharmacotherapy, 32% on single pharmacotherapy and 20% patients on complete guideline-recommended pharmacotherapy. In the prior CVD group, 7% patients were on no pharmacotherapy, 40% on incomplete pharmacotherapy and 53% were on complete guideline-recommended pharmacotherapy.
conclusionThis study adds to the evidence on implementation gaps in guideline-recommended management of ACVDR, showing that a large proportion of patients presenting with ACS due to CAD were at high risk of developing CVD prior to the event and most were not on guideline-recommended treatment. A significant proportion of these events are likely to have been preventable, and therefore, increased assessment and appropriate treatment of ACVDR in primary care is needed to reduce the incidence of CVD events in the population.
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.