ArticlePloS one2022
Comparison of clinical profiles and care for patients with incident versus recurrent acute coronary syndromes in France: Data from the MONICA registries.
Article in PloS one, 2022. 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.
- Impact of Multiple Cardiovascular Events on Long-Term Outcomes and Bleeding Risk in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Factors associated with complications in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a single-center experience.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Article
- Challenges and Burdens in the Coronary Artery Disease Care Pathway for Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Contemporary Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Incidence and predictors of recurrent acute coronary syndrome among adult patients with acute coronary syndrome in West Amhara, Ethiopia: a multicenter retrospective follow-up study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecurrence is common after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). In order to better assess the prognosis for patients with ACS, we compared clinical profiles, treatments, and case fatality rates for incident vs. recurrent ACS.
methodsWe enrolled 1,459 men and women (age: 35-74) living in three geographical areas covered by French MONICA registries and who had been admitted to hospital for an ACS in 2015/2016. We recorded and compared the clinical characteristics and medical care for patients with an incident vs. a recurrent ACS.
resultsOverall, 431 (30%) had a recurrent ACS. Relative to patients with an incident ACS, patients with recurrence were older (p<0.0001), had a greater frequency of NSTEMI or UA (p<0.0001), were less likely to show typical symptoms (p = 0.045), were more likely to have an altered LVEF (p<0.0001) and co-morbidities. Angioplasty was less frequently performed among patients with recurrent than incident NSTEMI (p<0.05). There were no intergroup differences in the prescription of the recommended secondary prevention measures upon hospital discharge, except for functional rehabilitation more frequently prescribed among incident patients (p<0.0001). Although the crude 1-year mortality rate was higher for recurrent cases (14%) than for incident cases (8%) (p<0.05), this difference was no longer significant after adjustment for age, sex, region, diagnosis category and LVEF.
conclusionCompared with incident patients, recurrent cases were more likely to have co-morbidities and to have suboptimal treatments prior to hospital stay, reinforcing the need for secondary prevention.
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.