ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Prognostic Analysis of Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Implantation of Different Stents for the First Time.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Prognostic Value of D-Dimer in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Retrospective Longitudinal Cohort Study in Taiwan.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2024Article
- Comparison of Different Systemic Inflammatory Markers in Predicting Clinical Outcomes with Syntax Score in Patients with Non-ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Retrospective Study.International journal of general medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For patients with acute myocardial infarction scheduled to undergo percutaneous coronary stent implantation, in most cases a drug-eluting stent is recommended as the first choice for treatment. However, there is a lack of research on the effectiveness of bare-metal stents and drug-eluting stents on patients with different types of myocardial infarction. Our objective was to explore the effects of bare-metal stents and drug-eluting stents on patients with different types of myocardial infarction in terms of major cardiovascular incidents. This retrospective cohort study included 934 patients with myocardial infarction undergoing coronary artery stent implantation for the first time at the cardiac catheter room of the Tri-Service General Hospital in the Neihu District between 2014 and 2018. Patients' information, including demographic data, laboratory data, cardiac echocardiography results, and angiocardiography results, was collected by reviewing medical records. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to adjust the potential confounding factors, and the adjusted data were then used to compare the correlation between different types of stents and major cardiovascular incidents in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. After the confounding factors were adjusted, in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction receiving a drug-eluting stent compared with those receiving a bare-metal stent, it was found that the mortality risk was lower in terms of all causes of death (Adj-HR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.14-0.48,
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.