Observational studyDeutsches Arzteblatt international2024
Pretreatment With Unfractionated Heparin in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction—A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.
Observational study in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are often pretreated with unfractionated heparin (UFH) before a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). UFH pretreatment is intended to lessen the thrombotic burden, but there have been conflicting study findings on its safety and efficacy. We assessed the risks and benefits of UFH pretreatment with a retrospective analysis of registry data from the STEMI network of a German metropolitan region.
methodsData from patients with STEMI referred for PPCI from 2005 to 2020 were evaluated with an adjusted outcome analysis, including propensity score matching (PSM). The endpoints included the patency of the infarct-related artery (IRA) after PPCI, in-hospital mortality, access-site bleeding, and the peak creatine kinase (CK) level.
resultsWe assessed data from 4632 patients with STEMI: 4420 (95.4%) were pretreated with UFH, and 212 (4.6%) were not. After PSM of 511 vs. 187 patients, the adjusted odds ratios for the various endpoints were (pretreatment vs. no pretreatment, with 95% confidence intervals): for impaired flow of the IRA, 1.01 [0.59; 1.74]; for in-hospital mortality, 1.46 [0.88; 2.42]; and for access-site bleeding, 0.59 [0.14; 2.46]. The peak creatine kinase levels were similar in the two groups (median, 1248.0 vs. 1376.5 U/L, estimated difference -134 [-611; 341]).
conclusionUFH pretreatment was less frequently performed in STEMI patients who had undergone cardiopulmonary resuscitation. UFH pretreatment was not associated with increased access-site bleeding, nor was it found to have significantly higher efficacy with respect to the relevant endpoints. The risks and benefits of UFH pretreatment should be weighed individually in each case, as evidence from high-quality clinical trials is lacking. Data from the existing literature suggest that no pretreatment is an option to be considered, as are certain alternative antithrombotic strategies.
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.