Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35300130›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2022

Late Percutaneous Coronary Intervention is Associated with Better Prognosis of Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Hao Dong, Xuan Li, Dongping Xiao, Yong Tang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of general medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Hao Dong *Department of Cardiology, The Second Hospital of Nanjing, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, 210000, People's Republic of China.
Xuan Li *Department of Gastroenterology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, People's Republic of China.
Dongping XiaoDepartment of Cardiology, The First Hospital of Nanchang, Nanchang, 330000, People's Republic of China.
Yong TangDepartment of Cardiology, The Second Hospital of Nanjing, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, 210000, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The optimal timing of invasive coronary revascularization in patients with late presentation of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains unclear. Objective: This study aimed to investigate whether late percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with the prognosis of AMI patients with HFpEF presenting >24h after symptom onset. Methods: We enrolled 680 AMI patients with HFpEF. Patients were divided into 3 groups: early-PCI strategy (defined as the time to open IRA from symptom onset <24 h), late-PCI strategy (defined as the time of PCI-mediated reperfusion was >24 h) and non-revascularization group. Results: A total of 144 (21.2%) experienced a MACE, including 118 (17.4%) all-cause deaths and 26 (3.8%) re-hospitalization for HF during a follow-up period of 30.20±15.62 months. After adjusting for gender, age, smoking, diabetes mellitus, NT-proBNP and eGFR, late-PCI was a significant and independent predictor of MACE (hazard ratio 0.367; 95% confidence interval 0.202-0.665; p<0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that late-PCI decreased cumulative risk of MACE (p< 0.001). Conclusion: Late-PCI and early-PCI strategies are associated with a reduced risk of MACE in AMI patients with HFpEF presenting >24 h after symptom onset, compared to conservative strategies.

Indexed as

acute myocardial infarctionpercutaneous coronary interventionprognosis

Identifiers

PMID35300130
PMCPMC8922034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.