ReviewDrugs & aging1998
Utilisation of thrombolytic therapy in older patients with myocardial infarction.
Review in Drugs & aging, 1998. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Empirical evidence from many countries, obtained from sampling populations of patients admitted to hospital with acute myocardial infarction, has confirmed that elderly patients are significantly less likely to receive thrombolytic therapy. This difference persists after controlling for confounding factors such as admission delay and contraindications to thrombolysis. However, evidence supporting the efficacy of thrombolysis in reducing mortality after acute myocardial infarction is less clear cut in patients aged 75 years or above than in younger patients. These older patients are substantially under-represented in the clinical trials although they constitute one third of the clinical population. Observational studies indicate that older patients are at slightly higher risk than younger patients of experiencing haemorrhagic stroke after thrombolysis. It is, however, unlikely that efficacy and tolerability considerations alone account for the low use of thrombolytics in the elderly as similar trends are seen for other modalities of treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Since older patients have the highest mortality risk after myocardial infarction, they have the greatest potential gain from thrombolytic treatment, assuming a uniform treatment effect across age. The estimated cost effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained) improves with increasing age. It is concluded that patient age should not influence the treatment decision concerning thrombolysis. To ensure that elderly patients receive maximum benefit from this therapeutic advance requires attention to referral patterns from the community, speed of assessment in hospital and a clear treatment policy without age constraints. The effectiveness of these measures should be routinely audited.
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.