ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome in Elderly Patients: A Narrative Review through Decisional Crossroads.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lung ultrasound evolution after interventional closure of the ductus in preterm babies.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Observational
- Outcomes in octogenarians undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: nationwide data from the Netherlands Heart Registration.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2026Article
- Role of thrombus-derived exosomal lncRNA LOC101928697 in regulating endothelial function via FUS protein interaction in myocardial infarction.Science progressArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnosis and treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) pose particular challenges in elderly patients. When high troponin levels are detected, the distinction between non-ischemic myocardial injury (NIMI), type 1, and type 2 myocardial infarction (MI) is the necessary first step to guide further care. However, the assessment of signs of ischemia is hindered in older patients, and no simple clinical or laboratory tool proved useful in this discrimination task. Current evidence suggests a benefit of an invasive vs. conservative approach in terms of recurrence of MI, with no significant impact on mortality. In patients with multivessel disease in which the culprit lesion has been treated, a physiology-guided complete percutaneous revascularization significantly reduced major events. The management of ACS in elderly patients is an example of the actual need for a multimodal, thorough clinical approach, coupled with shared decision-making, in order to ensure the best treatment and avoid futility. Such a need will likely grow throughout the next decades, with the aging of the world population. In this narrative review, we address pivotal yet common questions arising in clinical practice while caring for elderly patients with ACS.
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.