ArticleAmerican journal of cardiovascular disease2025
Percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients: clinical benefits and challenges from single center experience.
Article in American journal of cardiovascular disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesElderly patients who present with acute myocardial infarction are at increased risk for adverse outcomes owing to higher comorbidity burden and complicated coronary anatomy. We evaluated the three-year outcomes following coronary revascularization compared to conservative management among elderly patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction.
methods155 patients over 75 years of age who were admitted for acute myocardial infarction underwent invasive treatment with coronary angioplasty (n=58) or only medical treatment (n=97). The Kaplan-Meier log rank test was used to compare 3-year survival and rehospitalization probability and the Mantel-Cox log rank test was used to compare mean survival time between groups.
resultsIn the Invasive treatment group (ITG) cohort, 3-year survival probability was 74.1% as compared to 29.9% in the Conservative treatment group (CTG) cohort (P<0.001). Mean survival time at 3 years of follow-up was 31.50 (95% CI 29.35-33.65) months among ITG patients versus 24.65 (95% CI 22.71-26.59) months among CTG patients (P<0.001). Mean time to rehospitalization at 3 years was 34.05 (95% CI 32.37-35.72) in the ITG cohort compared to 30.03 (95% CI 28.13-31.93) in the CTG cohort (P=0.004).
conclusionCoronary revascularization among elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction reduces both all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events at 3-year follow-up. However, rates of rehospitalizations remain statistically similar between groups. Moreover, invasive treatment imparted improved rehospitalization probability compared to conservative treatment. This observation can be partially explained by a reduction in the frequency of myocardial infarction among those who underwent invasive treatment. While a thorough clinical assessment is required prior to treatment determination among elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization should be strongly considered as an intervention that likely improves overall survival probability.
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.