Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40555879›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions2025

One-Year Prognostic Differences and Management Strategies between ST-Elevation and Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Insights from the PRAISE Registry.

Luigi Spadafora, Paola Pastena, Stefano Cacciatore, Matteo Betti, Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai, Fabrizio D'Ascenzo, Gaetano Maria De Ferrari, Ovidio De Filippo, Francesco Versaci, Sebastiano Sciarretta and 12 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Luigi Spadafora *Department of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy. luigispadafora167@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6443-4121
Paola Pastena *Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Stefano Cacciatore *Department of Geriatrics, Orthopedics, and Rheumatology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, L.go F. Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Matteo BettiDepartment of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Cardiovascular Section, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe Biondi-ZoccaiDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy.
Fabrizio D'AscenzoDivision of Cardiology, Cardiovascular and Thoracic Department, Città della Salute e della Scienza Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Gaetano Maria De FerrariDivision of Cardiology, Cardiovascular and Thoracic Department, Città della Salute e della Scienza Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Ovidio De FilippoDivision of Cardiology, Cardiovascular and Thoracic Department, Città della Salute e della Scienza Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Francesco VersaciUOC UTIC Emodinamica e Cardiologia, Ospedale Santa Maria Goretti, Latina, Italy.
Sebastiano SciarrettaDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy.
Giacomo FratiDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy.
Francesco FiorentinoDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy.
Marco BorgiUOC UTIC Emodinamica e Cardiologia, Ospedale Santa Maria Goretti, Latina, Italy.
Nicola PierucciDepartment of Clinical Internal Anesthesiologic and Cardiovascular Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Pierre SabouretHeart Institute and Action Group, Pitié-Salpétrière, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Francesco AjmoneDepartment of Clinical Internal Anesthesiologic and Cardiovascular Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Attilio LaurettiDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035-1039, 00199, Rome, Italy.
Federico RussoDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035-1039, 00199, Rome, Italy.
Alberto PolimeniDepartment of Pharmacy, Health and Nutritional Sciences, University of Calabria, 87036, Rende, Italy.
Maciej BanachDepartment of Preventive Cardiology and Lipidologym, Medical University of Lodz (MUL), Lodz, Poland.
Giorgia PanichellaDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Marco BernardiDepartment of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWhether ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) carry distinct prognoses after discharge remains a matter of debate. This study aimed to compare 1-year clinical outcomes between patients with STEMI and NSTEMI in a large, real-world cohort.

methodsAmong 23,270 patients with acute coronary syndrome enrolled in the international PRAISE registry between 2003 and 2019, we included 21,789 patients with a diagnosis of either STEMI or NSTEMI. Clinical characteristics, discharge medications, and outcomes at 1 year were analyzed. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, re-infarction, and major bleeding. Multivariable logistic regression and propensity score matching were used to adjust for confounding. Subgroup and interaction analyses were also performed.

resultsThe cohort included 12,365 patients with STEMI and 9424 patients with NSTEMI. At baseline, patients with NSTEMI had more comorbidities, cardiovascular risk factors (except diabetes), and prior revascularization. Patients with STEMI were more frequently treated with statins, beta-blockers, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors at discharge. At 1-year follow-up, overall outcomes were comparable between groups. Nonfatal reinfarction occurred more frequently in patients with NSTEMI (3.4% versus 2.8%, p = 0.022), but this association was not significant after adjustment (odds ratio [OR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.24, p = 0.519). Results from propensity score-matched analyses confirmed the absence of prognostic differences. Subgroup analyses revealed significant interactions for diabetes mellitus and completeness of revascularization.

conclusionsAfter accounting for clinical and therapeutic variables, 1-year outcomes were largely similar in patients with STEMI and NSTEMI. Differences in reinfarction risk appear to be driven by baseline characteristics and treatment patterns, rather than infarct type itself.

Indexed as

Non-ST Elevated Myocardial InfarctionST Elevation Myocardial InfarctionAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsAgedFemaleHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisPropensity ScoreRegistriesRisk FactorsAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID40555879

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.