ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2021
Ischemia-Guided Approach Versus Early Invasive Approach for NSTE-ACS: How Early Is Early?
Review in Current cardiology reports, 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.
- Acute Coronary Syndrome: Treatment Strategies and Outcomes in Patients Admitted to a Tertiary Care Hospital in Palestine.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewNon-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) account for 70% of the patients with ACS. Most NSTE-ACS patients receive invasive therapies. Despite improvements in the systems of care and interventional techniques, the mortality of NSTE-ACS patients remains high, and delays in the treatment of NSTE-ACS patients continue to be a problem. This paper aims to discuss the importance of timeliness of invasive strategy in the treatment of NSTE-ACS as well as the state-of-the-art approach to this critical health problem. RECENT
findingsThe relatively recent guidelines and meta-analyses on the subject try to shed light on the issue of timing. The picture is now a little clearer, but still much remains to be answered. We know that the early invasive strategy at least is safe and improves recurrent ischemia and refractory angina as well as the length of stay, lowering the cost. In higher-risk patients, there is a benefit for a more aggressive approach. The definition of "early" in the early invasive strategy has evolved over the past decade and currently pertains to an invasive strategy performed within 12-24 h of presentation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33666745What 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.