ArticlePloS one2022
Effect of timing of coronary revascularization in patients with post-infectious myocardial infarction.
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 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coronary features in septic patients with elevated cardiac troponin.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAcute infection is a well-known provocative factor of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Prognosis is worse when it is associated with sepsis. Coronary revascularization is reported to provide benefit in these patients; however, the optimal timing remains uncertain.
methodsThis retrospective study was performed at a tertiary center in Taipei from January 2010 to December 2017. 1931 patients received coronary revascularization indicated for AMI. Among these, 239 patients were hospitalized for acute infection but later developed AMI. Patients with either an ST-elevation myocardial infarct or the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease were excluded. Revascularization was performed via either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). We defined early and delayed revascularization groups if it was performed within or after 24 hours of the diagnosis of AMI, respectively. We evaluated whether the timing of revascularization altered 30-day and one-year all-cause mortality.
resultsAt one month, 24 (26%) patients died in early revascularization group and 32 (22%) patients in delayed revascularization group. At one year, 40 (43%) and 59 (40%) patients died on early and delayed revascularization groups respectively. Early revascularization did not result in lower 30-day all-cause mortality (P = 0.424), and one-year all-cause mortality (Hazard ratio (HR): 0.935; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.626-1.397, P = 0.742) than delay revascularization.
conclusionsTiming of coronary revascularization of post infectious acute coronary syndrome may be arranged according to individual risk category as those without sepsis.
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.