ArticleGlobal heart2021
Predictors and Outcomes of Secondary Prevention Medication in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Article in Global heart, 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.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evidence on factors associated with guideline-directed secondary prevention medication (GDPM) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and its effect on the prognosis of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is lacking in China. Aims: To ascertain predictors of GDPM in real-world clinical practice and to assess the effect of GDPM on clinical outcomes. Design: A retrospective cohort study. Methods: Consecutive patients admitted to Fuwai Hospital between January 2013 and December 2013 were recruited. GDPM comprised aspirin, clopidogrel, statins, β-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin Ⅱ receptor blockers. The primary outcome was five-year major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (cardiac death, myocardial infarction [MI] and unplanned revascularization). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of prescribing GDPM. Multivariable Cox regression was used to examine the relationship between GDPM and clinical outcomes. Results: 10,067 patients were followed up for a median of 5.0 years (interquartile range: 4.3-5.2), 45.1% were prescribed with GDPM. Presenting with ST-segment elevation MI (adjusted OR = 3.252 [2.832-3.736]), prior MI (adjusted OR = 2.174 [1.948-2.425]), more stents implanted (adjusted OR = 1.063 [1.022-1.106]), overweight (adjusted OR = 1.136 [1.038-1.243]), obesity (adjusted OR = 1.274 [1.100-1.476]), diabetes (adjusted OR = 1.225 [1.115-1.344]), and hypertension (adjusted OR = 3.556 [3.196-3.956]) predicted the prescription of GDPM. Advanced age (adjusted OR = 0.556 [0.379-0.816]) was associated with lower prescription rate of GDPM. Patients with GDPM had lower rate of 5-year MACE (adjusted HR = 0.889 [0.808-0.978]) relative to those without GDPM. Conclusions: Despite the benefit of GDPM in improving the prognosis of CAD patients undergoing PCI, gaps still exist in GDPM prescription in real-world clinical practice. Our study determined target populations for physicians to strive to promote the application of GDPM.
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.