ArticlePloS one2024
Very early vs delayed invasive strategy in high-risk NSTEMI patients without hemodynamic instability: Insight from the KAMIR-NIH.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Multidomain Prediction Model Integrating Myocardial Injury, Ventricular Function, and Inflammation for Short-Term Risk Stratification in Patients with NSTEMI.Clinics and practice · 2026Article
- Review
- Twenty-Year Clinical Experience of the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry.Korean circulation journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-risk non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients' optimal timing for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is debated despite the recommendation for early invasive revascularization. This study aimed to compare outcomes of NSTEMI patients without hemodynamic instability undergoing very early invasive strategy (VEIS, ≤ 12 hours) versus delayed invasive strategy (DIS, >12 hours).
methodsExcluding urgent indications for PCI including initial systolic blood pressure under 90 mmHg, ventricular arrhythmia, or Killip class IV, 4,733 NSTEMI patients were recruited from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institutes of Health (KAMIR-NIH). Patients were divided into low and high- global registry of acute coronary events risk score risk score (GRS) groups based on 140. Both groups were then categorized into VEIS and DIS. Clinical outcomes, including all-cause death (ACD), cardiac death (CD), recurrent MI, and cerebrovascular accident at 12 months, were evaluated.
resultsAmong 4,733 NSTEMI patients, 62% had low GRS, and 38% had high GRS. The proportions of VEIS and DIS were 43% vs. 57% in the low GRS group and 47% vs. 53% in the high GRS group. In the low GRS group, VEIS and DIS demonstrated similar outcomes; however, in the high GRS group, VEIS exhibited worse ACD outcomes compared to DIS (HR = 1.46, P = 0.003). The adverse effect of VEIS was consistent with propensity score matched analysis (HR = 1.34, P = 0.042).
conclusionVEIS yielded worse outcomes than DIS in high-risk NSTEMI patients without hemodynamic instability in real-world 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.