ArticleJournal of geriatric cardiology : JGC2024
Optimal timing of invasive intervention for high-risk non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients.
Article in Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Impact of the risk-treatment paradox on in-hospital and long-term outcomes in patients with very high-risk non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome.The Indian journal of medical research · 2026Review
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
objectiveTo compare the immediate, early, and delayed percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategies in non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients with high-risk.
methodsMedical records of patients treated at the Daping Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China between 2011 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Only patients with complete available information were included. All patients assigned into three groups based on the timing of PCI including immediate (< 2 h), early (2-24 h) and delayed (≥ 24 h) intervention. Multivariable Cox hazards regression and simpler nonlinear models were performed.
resultsA total of 657 patients were included in the study. The median follow-up length was 3.29 (interquartile range: 1.45-4.85) years. Early PCI strategy improved the major adverse cardiac event (MACE) outcome compared to the immediate or delayed PCI strategy. Early PCI, diabetes mellitus, and left main or/and left anterior descending or/and left circumflex stenosis or/and right coronary artery ≥ 99% were predictors for MACE outcome. The optimal timing range for PCI to reduce MACE risk is 3-14 h post-admission. For high-risk NSTEMI patients, early PCI reduced primary clinical outcomes compared to immediate or delayed PCI, and the optimal timing range was 3-14 h post-admission. Delayed PCI was superior for NSTEMI with chronic kidney injury.
conclusionsDelayed invasive strategy was helpful to reduce the incidence of MACE for high-risk NSTEMI with chronic kidney injury. An immediate PCI strategy might increase the rate of MACE.
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.