Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36247421›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022

Early ACEI/ARB use and in-hospital outcomes of acute myocardial infarction patients with systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Findings from the CCC-ACS project.

Xuedong Zhao, Guanqi Zhao, Mengge Zhou, Ge Wang, Changsheng Ma, Sidney C Smith, Gregg C Fonarow, Louise Morgan, Bin Que, Hui Ai and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract 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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Xuedong ZhaoDivision of Cardiology, Center for Coronary Artery Disease, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Guanqi ZhaoDivision of Cardiology, Center for Coronary Artery Disease, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Mengge ZhouVanke School of Public Health, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Ge WangDivision of Cardiology, Center for Coronary Artery Disease, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Changsheng MaDivision of Cardiology, Arrhythmia Center, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Sidney C SmithDivision of Cardiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Gregg C FonarowDivision of Cardiology, Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Louise MorganDepartment of International Quality Improvement, American Heart Association, Dallas, TX, United States.
Bin QueDivision of Cardiology, Center for Coronary Artery Disease, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Hui AiDivision of Cardiology, Center for Coronary Artery Disease, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jing LiuThe Key Laboratory of Remodeling-Related Cardiovascular Diseases, Ministry of Education, Department of Epidemiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Beijing Institute of Heart, Lung and Blood Vessel Diseases, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Dong ZhaoThe Key Laboratory of Remodeling-Related Cardiovascular Diseases, Ministry of Education, Department of Epidemiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Beijing Institute of Heart, Lung and Blood Vessel Diseases, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Shaoping NieDivision of Cardiology, Center for Coronary Artery Disease, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Beijing Anzhen Hospital · CNCapital Medical University · CNAmerican Heart Association · USTsinghua University · CNUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Few studies have evaluated whether acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with relatively low blood pressure benefit from early ACEI/ARB use in the era of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Objectives: This study evaluated the associations of ACEI/ARB use within 24 h of admission with in-hospital outcomes among AMI patients with SBP < 100 mmHg and undergoing PCI. Methods: This study was based on the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-ACS project, a collaborative registry and quality improvement project of the American Heart Association and the Chinese Society of Cardiology. Between November 2014 and December 2019, a total of 94,623 patients with AMI were enrolled. Of them, 4,478 AMI patients with SBP < 100 mmHg and undergoing PCI but without clinically diagnosed cardiogenic shock at admission were included. Multivariable logistic regression and propensity score-matching analysis were used to evaluate the association between early ACEI/ARB use and in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), a combination of all-cause death, cardiogenic shock, and cardiac arrest. Results: Of AMI patients, 24.41% ( Conclusion: This study found that among AMI patients with an admission SBP < 100 mmHg undergoing PCI, early ACEI/ARB use was associated with better in-hospital outcomes. Additional studies of the early use of ACEIs/ARBs in AMI patients with relatively low blood pressure are warranted.

Indexed as

ACEI/ARBAMICCC-ACSlow blood pressuremortalityPCI

Identifiers

PMID36247421
PMCPMC9558728
OpenAlexW4297997390

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.