ArticleBMJ open2025
Impact of Charlson Comorbidity Index on clinical outcomes of patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: a propensity score matching method.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePatients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) admitted into emergency department are usually combined with a high number of comorbidities. Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) is the most commonly used measure to assess comorbidity in clinical practice. However, the impact of CCI on the clinical outcomes of patients with NSTEACS are still unclear.
designA multicenter retrospective cohort study.
settingWe used data from the Chongqing Medical University Medical Data Science Academy in Chongqing, China, which contains data from seven tertiary hospitals.
participantsData from 3308 consecutive patients aged over 18 diagnosed with NSTEACS admitted to emergency departments of seven hospitals from August 2012 to March 2023 were retrospectively analysed.
methodsPatients were divided into two groups based on CCI: CCI <3 as low CCI, and CCI ≥3 as high CCI. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis using the 1:1 nearest neighbour matching method with a calliper value of 0.02 was adopted to control for differences between the comparison cohorts. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were carried out to produce ORs with 95% CIs to identify whether the CCI is a potential independent predictor of in-hospital outcomes in the matched cohort. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: In-hospital mortality rate, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), length of stay and readmission rate.
results876 and 2432 patients belonged to the high CCI group (CCI ≥3) and the low CCI group (CCI <3). After PSM, 618 pairs were matched. There were significant differences in sociodemographic, clinical characteristics and laboratory tests between the two groups before PSM. The results were balanced and comparable after PSM (p>0.05). In patients with high CCI, in-hospital mortality, the incidence of MACEs, length of stay (LOS) and readmission rate were significantly higher compared with those with low CCI. Univariate analysis revealed that a higher CCI was associated with an increased incidence of MACEs, prolonged LOS and a higher readmission rate. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that even after adjusting for various confounding factors, a higher CCI remained an independent risk factor for an increased incidence of MACEs, prolonged LOS and higher readmission rate.
conclusionA high CCI not only increases the risk of in-hospital MACEs but also prolongs the length of stay and increases the readmission rate. We recommend that the CCI be used as a crucial risk indicator for clinical practitioners to identify and manage patients with a poor prognosis.
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.