ArticleThe American journal of cardiology2021
Outcomes of Individuals With and Without Heart Failure Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndrome.
Article in The American journal of cardiology, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Mobile Health Augmented Cardiac Rehabilitation on Clinical Outcomes among Post-Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- The prognostic role of glycemic variability in predicting the risk of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with cardiovascular diseases: a meta-analysis.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2025Review
- FOS as a biomarker for myocardial infarction treatment with Deng's Yangxin Decoction: a systems biology-based analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Application Value of NT-proBNP Combined with NLR in Evaluation of Major Adverse Cardiac Events in Elderly Patients with Chronic Heart Failure.Emergency medicine international · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Major adverse cardiac event (MACE) and bleeding risks following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are not well defined in individuals with heart failure (HF). We followed 1,145 individuals in the Pharmacogenomic Resource to improve Medication Effectiveness Genotype Guided Antiplatelet Therapy cohort for MACE and bleeding events following PCI for ACS. We constructed Cox proportional hazards models to compare MACE and bleeding in those with versus without HF, adjusting for sociodemographics, comorbidities, and medications. We also determined predictors of MACE and bleeding events in both groups. 370 (32%) individuals did and 775 (68%) did not have HF prior to PCI. Mean age was 61.7 ± 12.2 years, 31% were female, and 24% were African American. After a median follow-up of 0.78 years, individuals with HF had higher rates of MACE compared to those without HF (48 vs. 24 events per 100 person years) which remained significant after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00 to 1.72). Similarly, bleeding was higher in those with versus without HF (22 vs. 11 events per 100 person years), although this was no longer statistically significant after multivariable adjustment (HR 1.29, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.93). Diabetes and peripheral vascular disease were predictors of MACE, and end-stage renal disease was a predictor of bleeding among participants with HF. MACE risk is higher in individuals with versus without HF following PCI for ACS. However, the risk of bleeding, especially among those with end-stage renal disease , must be considered when determining post-PCI anticoagulant strategies.
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.