ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2026
The impact of primary percutaneous coronary intervention timing on prognosis in STEMI patients.
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cardiovascular disease: everybody's business.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe benefit of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) performed beyond 6 h after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) symptom onset remains uncertain.
methodsPatients presenting with STEMI from January 2009 to December 2022 were consecutively enrolled and stratified into three groups: PPCI within 6 h, PPCI beyond 6 h, and no PPCI. Clinical outcomes were compared using Cox multivariable analyses and propensity score matching.
resultsA total of 3,720 patients were included (77.4% male, mean age 62.61 ± 12.66 years). Patients were divided into PPCI within 6 h group (n = 1,127, 30.3%), PPCI beyond 6 h group (n = 587, 15.8%), and no PPCI group (n = 2,006, 53.9%). In-hospital mortality rates were 2.8%, 4.1% and 5.2%, respectively (p = 0.006), with pairwise analysis revealing significant differences among the groups. During a median follow-up of 4.96 years, cumulative mortality was 13.1% in PPCI within 6 h group, 16.0% in PPCI beyond 6 h group, and 24.0% in no PPCI group (P < 0.001). PPCI within 6 h was associated with lower mortality (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.565 (0.429-0.744), p < 0.001) or MACCE (adjusted HR 0.765 (0.640-0.914), p = 0.003) while PPCI beyond 6 h showed comparable cumulative mortality (adjusted HR 0.766 (0.575-1.020), p = 0.068) and MACCE (adjusted HR 0.884 (0.721-1.083), p = 0.234) versus no PPCI. Concordant results were observed in propensity score-matched cohorts.
conclusionWhile PPCI beyond 6 h of symptom onset may improve in-hospital outcomes in STEMI patients, it is necessary to perform PPCI within 6 h to achieve significant long-term benefits.
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.