ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2021
Treatment Effect of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Men Versus Women With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gender-based differences among ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients in Egypt: secondary analysis from the ACCA-EAPCI ESC-STEMI registry.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Gender Differences in Clinical Practice Regarding Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Acute Coronary Syndrome in Women: An Update.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
- Association of sex with post-arrest care and outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of initial shockable rhythm: a nationwide cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Sex Differences in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Global Perspective.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background Women are less likely to receive primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) than men. A potential reason is risk aversion because of the worse outcomes with pPCI among women. However, whether pPCI is associated with a comparable mortality benefit in men and women remains unknown. Methods and Results We selected patients admitted with a principal diagnosis of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in the National Inpatient Sample (2016-2018). We used propensity-score matching to calculate average treatment effects of pPCI for in-hospital mortality, major complications, length of stay, and cost. As a sensitivity analysis, we used logit models followed by a marginal command to calculate the average marginal effect. We included 413 500 weighted hospitalizations (30.7% women, 69.3% men). Women had more comorbidities except smoking and prior sternotomy. Compared with men, women were less likely to undergo angiography (81.0% versus 87.0%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.81;
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.