ArticleREC, interventional cardiology
On- vs off-hours primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a single-center 5-year experience.
Article in REC, interventional cardiology. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and objectives: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treatment delay significantly affects outcomes. The effect of admission time in STEMI patients is unknown when percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy. This study aimed to determine the association between STEMI outcomes and the timing of admission in a PCI center in south-western Europe. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed the local electronic data from 1222 consecutive STEMI patients treated with PCI. On-hours were defined as admission from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on non-national holidays. Results: A total of 439 patients (36%) were admitted on-hours and 783 patients (64%) were admitted off-hours. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the 2 groups, including the percentage of patients admitted in cardiogenic shock (on-hours 5% vs off-hours 4%; Conclusions: In a contemporary emergency network, the timing of STEMI patients' admission to the PCI center was not associated with reperfusion delays or increased mortality.
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.