ReviewCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2021
Sustainable Resumption of Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Procedures, and the Importance of Testing, During Endemic COVID-19.
Review in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2021. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coronary CTA Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Quicker Examination Protocol with Preserved Image Quality Using a Dedicated Cardiac Scanner.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- One-Year Follow-Up of Vascular Intervention Trials Disrupted by the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Use-Case landscape.Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions · 2022Article
- Management Principles for the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory During the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) Pandemic.Interventional cardiology clinics · 2022Review
- Cognitive Barriers to COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake Among Older Adults.Frontiers in 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
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAs second and third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic challenge healthcare in North America and Europe once again, we analyze the impact of the first wave on routine elective cardiovascular care, and the differential COVID risk emerging within our patient groups and staff. PERSPECTIVE: We describe the need to sustainably resume, and temporarily expand, routine elective cardiac services in the face of resurgent COVID-19. Some, but not all, cardiac patient groups are particularly vulnerable to adverse outcomes following COVID-19 infection. We explore mitigation measures at the institutional level to increase resilience within cardiac services to enable them to operate deep into subsequent waves of COVID infection which place unprecedented demands on intensive care infrastructure. As measures to eradicate the virus appear to have failed in many countries, and vaccine roll-out will take many months we take the view that the threat imposed by endemic COVID-19 alters the way elective procedural care should be offered to cardiovascular patients.
conclusionOur patients are at definite risk from their cardiovascular disease, and a return to suspension of proven prognostic interventional treatments on an elective basis - the default for the first wave - must be avoided at all costs.
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.