Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36277833›Full record

ReviewHeart international2021

Coronary Revascularization and Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest: Past, Present and Future.

Matthew E Li Kam Wa, Kalpa De Silva, Nilesh Pareek, Divaka Perera

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heart international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Matthew E Li Kam WaCardiovascular Division, St Thomas' Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Kalpa De SilvaCardiovascular Division, St Thomas' Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Nilesh PareekBritish Heart Foundation Centre of Excellence and National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, King's College London, London, UK.
Divaka PereraCardiovascular Division, St Thomas' Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation CS/16/3/32615
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiologists and the cardiac catheter laboratory have key roles to play in the management of patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Although immediate catheter laboratory activation is the standard of care in cardiogenic shock and ST elevation myocardial infarction, the majority of patients will present without these features and with an uncertain diagnosis. Even in the latter, early assessment and invasive management may be beneficial, but this is counterbalanced by significant resource utilization, potential to cause harm and the possibility that any diagnostic or therapeutic gains are offset by a poor neurological outcome. Past consensus on the management of the OHCA patient without ST elevation or cardiogenic shock is being challenged by emerging results from new trials in this field. Further randomized trials are ongoing, and are expected to deliver robust data from over 4,000 patients, allowing us to further refine the optimal management strategy in this challenging cohort. This article describes the benefits and pitfalls of a strategy of immediate coronary angiography in these patients, examines the recently published COACT and TOMAHAWK trials in detail, and describes a framework with which to approach the patient after resuscitated OHCA, based on the available evidence to date.

Indexed as

cardiac catheterizationcoronary angiographynon-ST elevation myocardial infarctionOut-of-hospital cardiac arrestpercutaneous coronary interventionreal-world clinical trials

Identifiers

PMID36277833
PMCPMC9524604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.