Effect of selected cardiovascular factors on mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary coronary intervention

KOMOROVA, Zuzana; MACHAL, Jan; GROCH, Ladislav; SPINAROVA, Lenka; LABR, Karel

doi:10.4149/bll_2023_064

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…42 This aligns with findings from Komorova et al ’s research. 43 Consequently, these predictors highlight the need for clinicians to rigorously assess cardiovascular status perioperatively, adhere to the latest clinical guidelines and best practices, and strictly manage surgical indications. Other studies indicate that mechanical complications of myocardial infarction, such as ventricular septal defects, lead to high mortality rates unaffected by reperfusion therapy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical appraisal and assessment of bias among studies evaluating risk prediction models for in-hospital and 30-day mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review

Shi,

Zhu,

et al. 2024

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveWe systematically assessed prediction models for the risk of in-hospital and 30-day mortality in post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients.DesignSystematic review and narrative synthesis.Data sourcesSearched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, CNKI, Wanfang Database, VIP Database and SinoMed for literature up to 31 August 2023.Eligibility criteriaThe included literature consists of studies in Chinese or English involving PCI patients aged ≥18 years. These studies aim to develop risk prediction models and include designs such as cohort studies, case–control studies, cross-sectional studies or randomised controlled trials. Each prediction model must contain at least two predictors. Exclusion criteria encompass models that include outcomes other than death post-PCI, literature lacking essential details on study design, model construction and statistical analysis, models based on virtual datasets, and publications such as conference abstracts, grey literature, informal publications, duplicate publications, dissertations, reviews or case reports. We also exclude studies focusing on the localisation applicability of the model or comparative effectiveness.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent teams of researchers developed standardised data extraction forms based on CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies to extract and cross-verify data. They used Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) to assess the risk of bias and applicability of the model development or validation studies included in this review.ResultsThis review included 28 studies with 38 prediction models, showing area under the curve values ranging from 0.81 to 0.987. One study had an unclear risk of bias, while 27 studies had a high risk of bias, primarily in the area of statistical analysis. The models constructed in 25 studies lacked clinical applicability, with 21 of these studies including intraoperative or postoperative predictors.ConclusionThe development of in-hospital and 30-day mortality prediction models for post-PCI patients is in its early stages. Emphasising clinical applicability and predictive stability is vital. Future research should follow PROBAST’s low risk-of-bias guidelines, prioritising external validation for existing models to ensure reliable and widely applicable clinical predictions.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42023477272.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical appraisal and assessment of bias among studies evaluating risk prediction models for in-hospital and 30-day mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review

Shi,

Zhu,

et al. 2024

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cardiogenic shock (CS) is the leading cause of in-hospital mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (1). Despite recent advancements in diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, the mortality rate remains high (2), reaching almost 50% (3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%