ArticleBMC medicine2025
The effect of follow-up reexamination on the long-term prognosis of patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing coronary angiography.
Article in BMC medicine, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remain at high risk for recurrent adverse cardiovascular events after discharge. Patient adherence to secondary prevention is poor. This study proposes a follow-up center-based secondary prevention program to assess whether a structured cardiologist-led follow-up and reexamination protocol influences ACS patient prognosis.
methodsA total of 9,534 ACS patients undergoing coronary angiography were retrospectively included and divided into a reexamination group (n = 6,804) and a non-reexamination group (n = 2,730) according to whether they were reexamined within one year or not. The patients were followed up after discharge for 3 years, and clinical outcomes were recorded. The primary outcome was cardiac death.
resultsReexamination within 12 months was significantly associated with a reduced risk of cardiac death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.75) at 3 years after ACS. Among patients who underwent reexamination, the risk of cardiac death was 50% lower (aHR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35-0.70) and 63% lower (aHR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.20-0.67) in the high-frequency (more than or equal to 2 times within one year) and long-term (continued reexamination after the first year of follow-up) reexamination groups, respectively. Similar results were observed after propensity score matching analysis.
conclusionsParticipation in a structured follow-up and reexamination programme significantly reduces the risk of cardiac death among ACS survivors. Establishing a follow-up center could be of great significance in improving patient prognoses.
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.