Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33150133›Full record

Trial reportGlobal heart2020

Comparative Effectiveness of Reperfusion Strategies in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Secondary Analysis of the Acute Coronary Syndrome Quality Improvement in Kerala (ACS QUIK) Trial.

Haitham Khraishah, Barrak Alahmad, Eric Secemsky, Michael N Young, Ahmed ElGuindy, Mark J Siedner, Mohamad Kassab, Dhaval Kholte, Khuzeima Khanbhai, Mohamed Janabi and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Global heart, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Haitham KhraishahDepartment of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, US.
Barrak AlahmadEnvironmental Health Department, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, US.
Eric SecemskyRichard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, US.
Michael N YoungCardiology Division, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, US.
Ahmed ElGuindyDepartment of Cardiology, Aswan Heart Centre, EG.
Mark J SiednerDivision of Infectious Diseases and Medical Practice Evaluation Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, US.
Mohamad KassabCardiovascular Research Center, Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, US.
Dhaval KholteCardiovascular Research Center, Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, US.
Khuzeima KhanbhaiDepartment of Adult Cardiology, Jakaya Kikwete Cardiac Institute, Dar es Salaam, TZ.
Mohamed JanabiDepartment of Adult Cardiology, Jakaya Kikwete Cardiac Institute, Dar es Salaam, TZ.
Kevin KennedyMid America Heart Institute, St Luke's Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri, US.
Mazen S AlbaghdadiCardiovascular Research Center, Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, US.
Harvard University · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USDartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center · USDeaconess Hospital · USSt. Luke's Hospital · US

Funding

Epidemiology of coronary artery disease among people with HIV in rural sub-Saharan AfricaR01HL141053 · NHLBI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI SIEDNER, MARK J · 2018 to 2021
$3.0M
Shared Decision-Making to Improve the Health Status of Patients with Claudication: Developing and Implementing Strategies to Individualize Treatment DecisionsK23HL150290 · NHLBI · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI SECEMSKY, ERIC ALEXANDER · 2020 to 2024
$851k
NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL150290NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL141053
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Substantial heterogeneity exists in reperfusion strategies for patients with ST-segment myocardial infarction (STEMI) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We sought to compare outcomes associated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) and non-primary percutaneous coronary intervention (nPPCI) reperfusion strategies in patients with STEMI in Kerala, India. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with STEMI (n = 8665) from the Acute Coronary Syndrome Quality Improvement in Kerala (ACS QUIK) randomized trial receiving either PPCI (n = 6623) or nPPCI (n = 2042). nPPCI included all PCI strategies implemented when PPCI was not available including all post-fibrinolysis PCI strategies and PCI without fibrinolysis. Clinical outcomes among patients undergoing PPCI and nPPCI were compared after propensity-score matching. The main outcomes were the rates of in-hospital and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as the composite of death, reinfarction, stroke, and major bleeding. Results: In the propensity-score matched cohort (n = 1266 in each group), nPPCI had longer symptom onset to hospital arrival time (347.5 vs. 195.0 minutes, p < 0.001), door to balloon time (108 minutes vs. 75 minutes, p < 0.001), and were less likely to receive a coronary stent (89.4% vs. 95%, p < 0.001), including drug-eluting stents (89.5% vs. 94.4%, p < 0.001). There were no clinically meaningful differences in discharge medical therapy. However, patients treated with nPPCI were less commonly referred for cardiac rehabilitation (20.2% vs. 24.2%; p = 0.019). In-hospital (3.6% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.74%) and 30-day (4.4% vs. 4.6%, p = 0.77) MACE did not differ between nPPCI and PPCI matched groups. Conclusion: In a large, contemporary population of STEMI patients from a LMIC, patients treated with a nPPCI reperfusion strategy had comparable short- and intermediate-term outcomes compared to PPCI despite differences in hospital presentation time and coronary stent use. These findings are reassuring but highlight the need for continued quality improvement in the delivery of STEMI care in resource-limited settings.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicQuality ImprovementRegistriesFemaleHumansIncidenceIndiaMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial ReperfusionRetrospective StudiesST Elevation Myocardial InfarctionThrombolytic TherapyTreatment Outcomecomparative effectivenesslow- and middle-income countries (LMICs)reperfusion strategiesST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)

Identifiers

PMID33150133
PMCPMC7566530
OpenAlexW3092372518

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.