ArticleAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2025
Age and sex differences in the efficacy of early invasive strategy for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: A comparative analysis in stable patients.
Article in American journal of preventive cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01218776 (International Survey of Acute Coronary Syndromes), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
International Survey of Acute Coronary Syndromes
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Invasive versus non-invasive management in non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with pulmonary hypertension.SAGE open medicine · 2026Article
- Changing clinical perspectives on sex and healthcare disparities in ischaemic heart disease.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Previous works have struggled to clearly define sex-specific outcomes based on initial management in NSTE-ACS patients. We examined if early revascularization (<24 h) versus conservative strategy impacts differently based on sex and age in stable NSTE-ACS patients upon hospital admission. Methods: We identified 8905 patients with diagnosis of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) in the ISACS-TC database. Patients with cardiac arrest, hemodynamic instability, and serious ventricular arrhythmias were excluded. The final cohort consisted of 7589 patients. The characteristics between groups were adjusted using inverse probability of treatment weighting models. Primary outcome measure was all-cause 30-day mortality. Risk ratios (RRs) with their 95 % CIs were employed. Results: Of the 7589 NSTE-ACS patients identified, 2450 (32.3 %) were women. The data show a notable reduction in mortality for the older women (aged 65 years and older) undergoing early invasive strategy compared to those receiving an initial conservative (3.0 % versus 5.1 %; RR: 0.57; 95 % CI: 0.32 - 0.99) Conversely, younger women did not exhibit a significant association between early invasive strategy and mortality reduction (2.0 % versus 0.9 %; RR: 2.27; 95 % CI: 0.73 - 7.04). For men, age stratification did not markedly alter the observed benefits of an early invasive strategy over a conservative approach in the overall population, with reduced death rates in both older (3.1 % versus 5.7 %; RR: 0.52; 95 % CI: 0.34 - 0.80) and younger age groups (0.8 % versus 1.7 %; RR: 0.46; 95 % CI: 0.22 - 0.94). These age and sex-specific mortality patterns did not significantly change within subgroups stratified by the presence of NSTEMI, or a GRACE risk score>140. Conclusion: Early coronary revascularization is associated with improved 30-day survival in older men and women and younger men who present to hospital in stable conditions after NSTE-ACS. It does not confer a survival advantage in young women. Further studies are needed to more accurately risk-stratify young women to guide treatment strategies. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01218776.
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.