ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2023
Performance of DAPT Score and ESC Criteria for Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Chinese Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The values of European Society of Cardiology (ESC) criteria and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) score in the stratification of ischemic risk were assessed in this study. Methods: A total of 489 patients with acute coronary syndrome who received DAPT at discharge between June 2020 and August 2020 were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which included recurrent ACS or unplanned revascularization, all-cause death, or ischemic stroke during a 27-month follow-up period. Results: Patients with ESC-defined high-risk showed a significantly higher risk of MACE (HR 2.75, 95% CI 1.78-4.25), all-cause death (HR 2.49, 95% CI 1.14-5.43), and recurrent ACS or unplanned revascularization (HR 2.80, 95% CI 1.57-4.99) than those with ESC-defined low/medium-risk during follow-up. The results of landmark analysis showed that patients in the high-risk group had a significantly higher risk of MACE (HR 2.80,95 CI% 1.57-4.97), recurrent ACS or unplanned revascularization (HR 3.19,95 CI% 1.47-6.93) within one year, and a higher risk of MACE (HR 2.69,95 CI% 1.38-5.23) after one year. There was no significant difference in the incidence of MACE between patients with a DAPT score ≥2 and a DAPT score <2. The C-indices of ESC criteria and DAPT score for prediction of MACE were 0.63 (95% CI 0.57-0.70) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.48-0.61), respectively. The predictive value of ESC criteria for MACE was better than the DAPT score according to the DeLong test (z-statistic=2.30, P=0.020). Conclusion: Patients with ESC-defined high-risk had a higher risk of MACE compared to those with ESC-defined low/medium-risk. The discriminant ability of the ESC criteria was better than the DAPT score for MACE. The ESC criteria demonstrated moderate discriminatory capacity of MACE in ACS patients treated with DAPT.
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.