ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention2024
The prevalence and outcomes in STEMI patients aged ≥75 undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention in China.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Invasive Strategy With Intended Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Conservative Treatment in Older People With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the prevalence and outcomes of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Chinese patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) aged ≥75 years. Methods: We identified STEMI patients aged ≥75 years between 2013 and 2014 from a multicenter registry. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) including a composite of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, recurrent MI, stroke, revascularization, and major bleeding. Hazard ratios (HR) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Results: Approximately 32.9% (n = 999) patients received primary PCI. Primary PCI was associated with lower risks of two-year all-cause mortality (18.0% vs. 36.4%; adjusted HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.65, P < 0.0001), MACCE (28.7% vs. 43.5%; adjusted HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.80, P < 0.0001), and cardiac death (10.0% vs. 23.6%; adjusted HR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.62, P < 0.0001) relative to no reperfusion (n = 2041) in patients aged ≥75 years. The better outcomes in two-year all-cause mortality, MACCE, and cardiac death were consistently observed in STEMI patients aged ≥85 years. No differences were observed in recurrent MI, stroke, revascularization, and major bleeding between the two groups. Additionally, in patients with relatively high-risk profiles such as cardiogenic shock or delaying hospital admission, primary PCI was also superior to no reperfusion. Conclusion: Primary PCI may decrease two-year all-cause mortality, MACCE, and cardiac death in STEMI patients aged ≥75 years, even in these with age ≥85 years, cardiogenic shock, or delaying hospital admission. However, primary PCI was underutilized in Chinese clinical practice.
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.