ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2022
Reconsidering treatment guidelines for acute myocardial infarction during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- COVID-19 vaccination and mortality among coronary care patients with severe acute respiratory infection in Bangladesh: a prospective study (2021-2024).The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2026Article
- Incidence of Recurrent Adverse Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Bangladesh: A Prospective Observational Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Intraoperative ventricular septal rupture: A case report.Clinical case reports · 2023Article
- Coronavirus disease 2019 and cardiovascular disease.Tzu chi medical journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCOVID-19 affects healthcare resource allocation, which could lead to treatment delay and poor outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on AMI outcomes.
methodsWe compared outcomes of patients admitted for acute ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI) during a non-COVID-19 pandemic period (January-February 2019; Group 1, n = 254) and a COVID-19 pandemic period (January-February 2020; Group 2, n = 124).
resultsFor STEMI patients, the median of first medical contact (FMC) time, door-to-balloon time, and total myocardial ischemia time were significantly longer in Group 2 patients (all p < 0.05). Primary percutaneous intervention was performed significantly more often in Group 1 patients than in Group 2 patients, whereas thrombolytic therapy was used significantly more often in Group 2 patients than in Group 1 patients (all p < 0.05). However, the rates of and all-cause 30-day mortality and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) were not significantly different in the two periods (all p > 0.05). For NSTEMI patients, Group 2 patients had a higher rate of conservative therapy, a lower rate of reperfusion therapy, and longer FMC times (all p < 0.05). All-cause 30-day mortality and MACE were only higher in NSTEMI patients during the COVID-19 pandemic period (p < 0.001).
conclusionsCOVID-19 pandemic causes treatment delay in AMI patients and potentially leads to poor clinical outcome in NSTEMI patients. Thrombolytic therapy should be initiated without delay for STEMI when coronary intervention is not readily available; for NSTEMI patients, outcomes of invasive reperfusion were better than medical treatment.
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.