Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35497986›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022

Risk Estimation for Infection in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Development and Validation of a Predictive Score.

Yuanhui Liu, Litao Wang, Pengyuan Chen, Yining Dai, Yaowang Lin, Wei Chen, Zhengrong Xu, Lihuan Zeng, Hualin Fan, Ling Xue and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

15 authors.

Yuanhui LiuDepartment of Cardiology, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Litao WangDepartment of Cardiology, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Pengyuan ChenDepartment of Cardiology, The Second People's Hospital of Nanhai District, Guangdong General Hospital's Nanhai Hospital, Foshan, China.
Yining DaiDepartment of Cardiology, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Yaowang LinDepartment of Cardiology, Second Clinical Medical College of Jinan University, Shenzhen People's Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital of South University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China.
Wei ChenClinical College of Fujian Provincial Hospital, Fujian Provincial Hospital, Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fujian Provincial Center for Geriatrics, Fujian Medical University, Fujian Cardiovascular Institute, Fuzhou, China.
Zhengrong XuDepartment of Cardiology, People's Hospital of Baoan Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China.
Lihuan ZengDepartment of Cardiology, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Hualin FanDepartment of Cardiology, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Ling XueDepartment of Cardiology, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Simin LiuCenter for Global Cardiometabolic Health, Department of Epidemiology, Medicine, and Surgery, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States.
Jiyan ChenDepartment of Cardiology, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Ning TanDepartment of Cardiology, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Pengcheng HeDepartment of Cardiology, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Chongyang DuanDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Infection during hospitalization is a serious complication among patients who suffered from acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); however, there are no suitable and accurate means to assess risk. This study aimed to develop and validate a simple scoring system to predict post-AMI infection in such patients. Methods: All patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing PCI consecutively enrolled from January 2010 to May 2016 were served as derivation cohort, and those from June 2016 to May 2018 as validation cohort, respectively. The primary endpoint was post-AMI infection during hospitalization, and all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were considered as secondary endpoints. The simplified risk model was established using logistic regression. The area under the receiver operating curve and calibration of predicted and observed infection risk were calculated. Results: A 24-point risk score was developed, with infection risk ranging from 0.7 to 99.6% for patients with the lowest and highest score. Seven variables including age, Killip classification, insulin use, white blood cell count, serum albumin, diuretic use, and transfemoral approach were included. This model achieved the same high discrimination in the development and validation cohort (C-statistic:0.851) and revealed adequate calibration in both datasets. The incidences of post-AMI infection increased steadily across risk score groups in both development (1.3, 5.1, 26.3, and 69.1%; Conclusion: This present risk score established a simple bedside tool to estimate the risk of developing infection and other in-hospital outcomes in patients with STEMI undergoing PCI. Clinicians can use this risk score to evaluate the infection risk and subsequently make evidence-based decisions.

Indexed as

infectionobservational studypercutaneous coronary interventionrisk scoreST-elevation myocardial infarction

Identifiers

PMID35497986
PMCPMC9051071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.