ReviewCureus2025
Common Myths and Misconceptions About Primary Angioplasty in Acute Myocardial Infarction: An Evidence-Based Perspective for Indian Primary Care Physicians.
Review in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the gold standard for managing ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, in India, despite the availability of catheterization laboratories, timely access to PCI remains limited due to persistent myths and misconceptions among primary care physicians. Common misconceptions include exaggerated concerns about procedural risks, the belief that medical management or thrombolysis is equally effective, the assumption that patients must be fully stabilized before referral, and uncertainty regarding the role of pharmacoinvasive (PI) strategies. Evidence consistently demonstrates that primary PCI is both safe and highly effective, reducing mortality, reinfarction, and stroke compared with thrombolysis, with very low complication rates. Despite these proven benefits, only a small proportion of STEMI patients in India currently receive primary PCI. Significant delays in care also persist, with many patients reaching the hospital several hours after symptom onset. PI therapy has emerged as a pragmatic alternative when timely PCI cannot be achieved, offering outcomes comparable to primary PCI in resource-limited and geographically constrained settings. Addressing these misconceptions through targeted education, standardized protocols, and strengthened STEMI networks is essential to improve outcomes and optimize reperfusion therapy in India.
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.