SynthesisBMC geriatrics2024
Predictors of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events after percutaneous coronary intervention in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the Performance of Machine Learning Models and Conventional Risk Scores for Predicting Major Adverse Cardiovascular Cerebrovascular Events After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Predictors of bleeding-related in-hospital complications after coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: A single-center retrospective cohort study in Iran.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2026Article
- In-hospital outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients with different medical funds: an analysis from Thai PCI registry.Open heart · 2026Observational
- Efficacy and safety of intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention with intravascular lithotripsy for severe calcified lesions.Heart and vessels · 2026Article
- Prognostic value of CTI for major adverse cardiovascular events in patients With ST-elevation myocardial infarction after primary percutaneous coronary intervention.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of loading dose atorvastatin on postoperative cardiovascular events in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Predicting treatment outcomes by door-to-device time and baseline characteristics in STEMI patients undergoing PPCI: a cross-sectional study in southern Iran.ARYA atherosclerosis · 2026Article
- Multimodal Machine Learning Integrating N-13 Ammonia PET and Clinical Variables Predicts Major Adverse Cardiac Events.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Predicting cardiovascular outcomes in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome: a nomogram approach.Research square · 2025Article
- Psoas muscle index as a predictor of mortality following percutaneous coronary intervention.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2025Article
- Risk Prediction of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events Within One Year After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: Machine Learning-Based Time-to-Event Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Observational
- Applied machine learning to predict 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events in elderly patients after percutaneous coronary intervention.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Percutaneous coronary intervention of the left main in the elderly: a reasonable option.REC, interventional cardiologyArticle
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
aimWe systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed the predictors of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACE/MACCE) in older adults who underwent PCI.
methodsThree databases, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, were searched for observational studies considering the out-of-hospital MACE/MACCE in adults ≥ 60 years old with coronary artery disease (acute or chronic) who underwent PCI. Studies were eligible if they had determined at least two statistically significant predictors of MACE/MACCE by multivariable analysis. We used the QUIPS tool to evaluate the risk of bias in the studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was utilized to pool the hazard ratios (HRs) of the most reported predictors.
resultsA total of 34 studies were included in the review. Older age (HR = 1.04, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.03-1.06, P-value < 0.001), diabetes (HR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.22-1.53, P < 0.001), history of myocardial infarction (MI) (HR = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.37-2.57, P < 0.001), ST-elevation MI (STEMI) at presentation (HR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.37-2.18, P < 0.001), reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (HR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.52-2.65, P < 0.001), successful PCI (HR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.27-0.47, P < 0.001), eGFR (HR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97-1.00; P-value = 0.04) and left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease (HR = 2.07, 95% CI: 1.52-2.84, P < 0.001) were identified as predictors of MACE.
conclusionWe identified older age, diabetes, history of MI, STEMI presentation, lower LVEF, and LMCA disease increased the risk of MACE/MACCE after PCI in older adults. Meanwhile, higher eGFR and successful PCI predicted lower adverse events risk. Future studies should focus on a more robust methodology and a precise definition of MACE. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42023480332).
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.