ReviewReviews in cardiovascular medicine2026
Pathways of Care for Patients Who Undergo Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for STEMI: A Review of "
Review in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Care processes and outcomes for patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remain heterogeneous. A "patient pathway" framework-defined as the sequence of clinically relevant events from symptom onset through diagnosis, reperfusion, and early recovery-can help identify real-world points of failure and opportunities for system-level improvement. In this narrative review, we contrast an "ideal" STEMI pathway with the pathways commonly observed in routine practice for patients treated with primary PCI, and we contextualize deviations from best practice from patient, clinician, health service, and societal perspectives. From the patient's perspective, the priority is rapid symptom recognition and seeking care; however, delays are frequent, particularly in individuals with mild, atypical, or non-classical presentations, prolonging total ischemic time and increasing myocardial injury. Clinicians aim to diagnose STEMI promptly and initiate evidence-based therapy and reperfusion without delay, yet diagnostic uncertainty and competing differentials can contribute to missed or late diagnoses. Health systems seek to provide timely, efficient, and cost-effective emergency revascularization, but performance is influenced by pre-hospital logistics, triage, catheterization laboratory availability, and inter-hospital transfer processes. At the societal level, STEMI imposes substantial mortality, morbidity, and economic burden through premature death and disability. We synthesize evidence on delays to revascularization, misdiagnosis, populations at risk for atypical presentation, and pragmatic interventions to improve care. We conclude that pathway-based analyses offer a structured approach to defining desirable STEMI care trajectories and to reducing missed opportunities for better 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.