ArticleBMJ open2021
PR interval prolongation and 1-year mortality among emergency department patients: a multicentre transnational cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Prognostic Ability of ECG Findings in Predicting Cardiovascular Events: A Five-Year Nested Case-Cohort Study in an Iranian Population (Shiraz Heart Study).Health science reports · 2026Article
- Value of frontal QRS axis for risk stratification of individuals with prolonged PR interval.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2023Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEmerging evidence supports that PR interval prolongation is associated with increased mortality. However, most previous studies have limited confounder control, and clinical impact in a population of acute ill patients is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate whether 1-year all-cause mortality was increased in patients presenting with PR interval prolongation in the emergency department (ED). DESIGN AND
settingWe conducted a register-based cohort study in two Swedish and two Danish EDs. We included all adult patients with an ECG performed at arrival to the Danish EDs during March 2013 to May 2014 and Swedish EDs during January 2010 to January 2011. Using propensity score matching, we analysed HR for 1-year all-cause mortality comparing patients with PR interval prolongation (>200 ms) and normal PR interval (120-200 ms). PARTICIPANTS AND
resultsWe included 106 124 patients. PR interval prolongation occurred in 8.9% (95% CI 8.7% to 9.0%); these patients were older and had more comorbidity than those with a normal PR interval. The absolute 1-year risk of death was 13% (95% CI 12.3% to 13.7%) for patients with PR interval prolongation and 7.9% (95% CI 7.7% to 8.0%) for those without. After confounder adjustments by propensity score matching, PR interval prolongation showed no association with 1-year mortality with a HR of 1.00 (95% CI 0.93% to 1.08%).
conclusionPR interval prolongation does not constitute an independent risk factor for 1-year mortality in ED patients.
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.