ArticleSAGE open medicine2026
Invasive versus non-invasive management in non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with pulmonary hypertension.
Article in SAGE open 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) represents a substantial proportion of acute coronary syndrome and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is linked to adverse cardiovascular outcomes and may complicate management decisions in NSTEMI. However, evidence regarding the optimal treatment strategy for NSTEMI patients with PH remains limited. This study evaluated the association between invasive versus conservative management and short- and long-term outcomes in a real-world multicenter cohort. Materials and methods: This retrospective multicenter cohort study used data from the Tianjin Health and Medical Big Data Super Platform. Adult patients hospitalized with NSTEMI and concomitant PH between January 2010 and March 2023 were included. Patients were categorized according to treatment strategy during the index hospitalization (invasive vs. conservative management). The primary outcome was 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or repeat revascularization. Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression. The primary analysis used inverse probability of treatment weighting with doubly robust Cox regression models, with additional sensitivity analyses. Results: Among 985 patients with NSTEMI and PH, 243 (24.7%) received invasive management and 742 (75.3%) conservative treatment. In doubly robust Cox models, invasive management was associated with a lower risk of 1-year MACE (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.60, 95% CI 0.41-0.88, P = 0.009) and cardiac death (aHR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34-0.87, P = 0.011). However, bleeding risk was higher in the invasive group (aHR 2.86, 95% CI 1.34-6.11, P = 0.007). Conclusion: Invasive management was associated with fewer ischemic events but a higher risk of bleeding in patients with NSTEMI and PH, highlighting the need for individualized treatment strategies.
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.