ArticleCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2025
Comparison of clinical outcomes between direct and indirect transfer in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.
Article in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Aortic Stenosis and Cardiogenic Shock.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Standard and Non-standard Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Ischemic Heart Disease and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Clinical Review.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Review
- Interfacility Transfer and Mortality in Patients With Type A Acute Aortic Dissection - Analysis of the Tokyo Acute Aortic Super-Network Database.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Interhospital transfer versus direct admission for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025Review
- Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Acute Cardiovascular Care.Circulation reports · 2025Review
- Antithrombotic Management in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Updated Clinical Review.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Review
- Clinical Benefits of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography for Evaluating Low-Risk Patients With Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Emergency Department - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Circulation reports · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the cornerstone of treatment for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Previous studies suggest that direct transport by ambulance to a primary PCI facility is associated with better clinical outcomes in patients with STEMI. However, those studies included seriously ill patients for whom direct transport is the only option. We included 462 patients with STEMI who were supposed to select either direct transport by ambulance or indirect transport via primary care doctor, and compared the clinical outcomes between the direct transfer group (n = 172) and the indirect transfer group (n = 290). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which was defined as the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, re-admission for heart failure, and target vessel revascularization. The median follow-up duration was 540 days (86-1266 days). Age was significantly higher in the indirect transfer group [72.0 (64-80) years] than in the direct transfer group [69.5 (58.3-77) years] (p = 0.013). Onset to balloon time was significantly shorter in the direct transport group (p < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier curves revealed that MACE were similarly observed between the two groups (31.4% vs. 27.2%; p = 0.330). After adjusting for potential confounders, indirect transfer was not associated with MACE (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.740, 95% confidence interval: 0.485-1.128, p = 0.161). In conclusion, indirect transfer was not associated with poor clinical outcomes in patients with STEMI who were supposed to select either direct transport or indirect transport.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39661315What 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.