ArticleAnnals of medicine2024
CatLet score and clinical CatLet score as predictors of long-term outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting later than 12 hours from symptom onset.
Article in Annals of medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anxiety disorders following percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction: A comprehensive review of clinical manifestations and interventions.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Review
- CatLet Score as a Predictor of Cardiac Death in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From Interpretable Machine Learning Models.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- A scoring system combining CatLet score and clinical variables as a predictor of long-term prognosis in patients with chronic coronary syndrome after percutaneous coronary intervention.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Catlet scoring system as a new predictor for in-stent restenosis in patients with chronic coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Association between the age-to-serum albumin ratio and all-cause mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOur recently developed
methodsCS was calculated in 1018 consecutive AMI patients enrolled in a retrospective registry. CCS was calculated by multiplying CS by the ACEF I score (age, creatinine, and left ventricular ejection fraction). Primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 4-year-follow-up, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization.
resultsOver a 4-year follow-up period, both scores were independent predictors of clinical outcomes after adjustment for a broad spectrum of risk factors. Areas-under-the-curve (AUCs) for CS and CCS were 0.72(0.68-0.75) and 0.75(0.71-0.78) for MACEs; 0.68(0.63-0.73) and 0.78(0.74-0.83) for all-cause death; 0.73(0.68-0.79) and 0.83(0.79-0.88) for cardiac death; and 0.69(0.64-0.73) and 0.75(0.7-0.79) for myocardial infarction; and 0.66(0.61-0.7) and 0.63(0.58-0.68) for revascularization, respectively. CCS performed better than CS in terms of the above-mentioned outcome predictions, as confirmed by the net reclassification and integrated discrimination indices.
conclusionsCCS was better than CS to be able to risk-stratify long-term outcomes in AMI patients presenting >12 h after symptom onset. These findings have indicated that both anatomic and clinical variables should be considered in decision-making on management of patients with AMI presenting later.
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.