Observational studyOpen heart2026
In-hospital outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients with different medical funds: an analysis from Thai PCI registry.
Observational study in Open heart, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe limited literature provides minimal information on clinical outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) under different healthcare funding systems, especially in Thailand.
objectiveThe study aimed to investigate the association between in-hospital clinical outcomes of patients treated with PCI and different types of healthcare funding in Thailand.
methodThe Thai PCI registry is a multicentre, prospective national registry with 39 participating medical centres. Web-based data entry, collected between May 2018 and August 2020, was centrally managed and analysed, providing clinical characteristics, medical management and in-hospital outcomes.
resultsA total of 22 741 patients were analysed and classified into four groups: the Universal Health Coverage Scheme (UC) (63.1%), Government Service Scheme (GS) (26.8%), Social Security Service Scheme (SS) (6.8%) and other payment fund (3.2%). The SS group was younger and predominantly male, whereas cardiovascular risk factors were higher in the GS group. After adjusting for baseline characteristics and management strategies, in-hospital MACE outcomes of ACS patients were significantly higher in patients in the SS (OR=1.81 (1.38, 2.37), p<0.001) and UC group (OR=1.22 (1.04, 1.44), p=0.017) compared with the GS group. Post-procedural myocardial infarction was also higher across all groups. Though differences in all-cause death and cerebrovascular accident/stroke were not statistically significant.
conclusionHealthcare funding policies in Thailand significantly associated with disparities in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing PCI. Patients receiving treatment under the GS scheme demonstrated better clinical outcomes compared to other schemes. These findings highlight the need for policy adjustments aimed at reducing healthcare disparities to improve patient outcomes.
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.