ArticleGlobal health research and policy2024
Impact of access to coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention on in-hospital and five-year mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a propensity-matched cohort study in Thailand.
Article in Global health research and policy, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCoronary artery angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are superior to non-invasive approaches in reducing mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, their efficacy remains uncertain in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and limited in low-resource settings. This study aimed to compare in-hospital and 5-year mortality rates between patients with a first event of STEMI and NSTE-ACS who underwent CAG and PCI and those with similar severity who did not undergo CAG and PCI.
methodsA propensity-matched retrospective cohort study was conducted using population-based claims data of national universal coverage of Thailand for identification of patients with acute coronary syndromes. The mortality of recruited patients was additionally linked to the national database of vital registration. Patients aged ≥ 40 years who were hospitalized for STEMI and NSTE-ACS in 2017, with a focus on access to CAG and PCI were included. For each condition either STEMI or NSTE-ACS, patients who underwent CAG and PCI were matched to those who did not undergo using propensity score matching (PSM) to balance measured confounders, such as age, sex, and underlying conditions. In-hospital mortality rate ratio and 5-year mortality were analyzed as measures.
resultsThrough PSM, 2,702 non-intervention STEMI patients were paired with an equal number of intervention patients, and similarly, 5,072 non-intervention NSTE-ACS patients were matched with an equivalent group who received interventions. For patients with STEMI, the in-hospital mortality rate ratio (95% confidence interval (CI)) for those who underwent CAG and PCI compared to those who did not was 30.1% (30.0%, 30.2%). Similar trends were observed in patients with NSTE-ACS with a mortality rate of 34.7% (34.6%, 34.8%). For the five-year mortality comparison, the hazard ratios (95% CI) of mortality after discharge were 0.55 (0.50, 0.62) for STEMI and 0.57 (0.54, 0.61) for NSTE-ACS cases.
conclusionsAccess to CAG and PCI was significantly associated with lower in-hospital and 5-year mortality rates in patients who experienced their first event of ACS, despite the limited availability of some unmeasured or residual confounders. Healthcare systems should expand their resources for CAG and PCI in Thailand and other countries to equitably enhance longevity.
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.