ArticleThe Eurasian journal of medicine2021
Application of the Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Russian Federation: Data from the Federal Registry.
Article in The Eurasian journal of medicine, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Rationale and Design of the KOSovan Acute Coronary Syndrome (KOS-ACS) Registry.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the study was to apply the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization on Russian Acute Coronary Syndrome Registry (RusACSR) data to analyze validity of the decision to perform percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). MATERIAL AND
methodsIn Russia, the frequency of performing PCI increased almost 7.5 times, and more than half of all interventions were performed in patients with ACS, in the period from 2006 to 2015. AUC 2012 were used to assess PCI appropriateness. Data were exported from RusACSR from a period of January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016. We analyzed 33 893 cases, but 13 957 patients were excluded owing to absence of data needed. The study group therefore included 19 936 patients with ACS (mean age, 65.3 ± 11.9 years; 40.3% women), and it was divided into 2 subgroups: 13 757 (67.2%) patients who were treated conservatively and 6179 (32.8%) patients who underwent PCI. According to AUC, physicians' choice of strategy was validated.
resultsPatients treated conservatively differed significantly (
conclusionAUC implementation showed low availability of PCI for patients with non-ST segment elevation ACS accompanied by complicated clinical status. AUC for coronary revascularization could be applied in Russian clinical practice for unbiased PCI candidate selection and for evaluation of decision validity.
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.