SynthesisArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2023
Invasive Versus Conservative Management of NSTEMI Patients Aged ≥ 75 Years.
Synthesis in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2023. 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.
- Invasive Versus Conservative Management of NSTEMI Patients Aged ≥ 75 Years: Commentary.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Article
- Improving Meta-analyses.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe efficiency of invasive management in older patients (≥75 years) with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remains ambiguous.
objectivesTo assess the efficiency of invasive management in older patients with NSTEMI based on meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA).
methodsRelevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies were included. The primary outcomes were all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding. Pooled odd ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsFive RCTs and 22 observational studies with 1017374 patients were included. Based on RCT and TSA results, invasive management was associated with lower risks of myocardial infarction (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.40-0.65; I2=0%), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.49-0.77; I2=27.0%), and revascularization (OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.15-0.55; I2=5.3%) compared with conservative management. Pooling results from RCTs and observational studies with multivariable adjustment showed consistently lower risks of all-cause death (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.50-0.64; I2=86.4%), myocardial infarction (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.56-0.71; I2=0%), stroke (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.51-0.69; I2=0%), and MACE (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.54-0.76; I2=43.4%). The better prognosis associated with invasive management was also observed in real-world scenarios. However, for patients aged ≥85 years, invasive management may increase the risk of major bleeding (OR: 2.68; 95% CI: 1.12-6.42; I2=0%).
conclusionsInvasive management was associated with lower risks of myocardial infarction, MACE, and revascularization in older patients with NSTEMI, yet it may increase the risk of major bleeding in patients aged ≥85 years.
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.