ArticleHeart, lung & circulation2022
COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndromes: An Australian Tertiary Centre Experience.
Article in Heart, lung & circulation, 2022. 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.
- The Effect of Coronavirus Outbreak on the Utilization of Coronary Revascularization Procedures: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCountries who suffered large COVID-19 outbreaks reported a decrease in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) presentations and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The impact of the pandemic in countries like Australia, with relatively small outbreaks yet significant social restrictions, is relatively unknown. There is also limited and conflicting data regarding the impact on clinical outcomes, symptom-to-door time (STDT) and door-to-balloon time (DTBT).
methodsConsecutive ACS patients treated with PCI were prospectively recruited from a tertiary hospital network in Melbourne, Australia. The pre-pandemic period (11 March 2019-10 March 2020) was compared to the pandemic period (11 March 2020-10 May 2020) using an interrupted time series analysis with a primary endpoint of number PCI-treated ACS per day. Secondary endpoints included STDT, DTBT, total mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).
resultsA total 984 ACS patients (14.8% during the pandemic period) received PCI. Mean number of PCI-treated ACS per day did not differ between the two periods (2.3 vs 2.4, p=0.61) with no difference in STDT [+51.3 mins, 95% confidence interval (CI) -52.4 to 154.9, p=0.33], 30-day mortality (5% vs 5.3%, p=0.86) or MACE (5.2% vs 6.1%, p=0.68). DTBT was significantly longer during the pandemic versus the pre-pandemic period (+18.1 mins, 95% CI 1.6-34.5, p=0.03) and improved with time (slope estimate: -0.76, 95% CI -1.62 to 0.10).
conclusionsDespite significant social restrictions imposed in Melbourne, numbers of ACS treated with PCI and 30-day outcomes were similar to pre-pandemic times. DTBT was significantly longer during the COVID-19 pandemic period, likely reflecting infection control measures, which reassuringly improved with time.
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.