Key result
PCI linked to ~69% lower 1-year mortality versus conservative treatment, especially with severe comorbidity.
Why the study?
The study aimed to compare 1-year outcomes of conservative versus invasive treatment tactics for myocardial infarction across varying severities of comorbid background.
Does an invasive strategy (PCI) reduce 1-year mortality compared to conservative treatment in patients with myocardial infarction across different severities of comorbidity?
Population
1 176 patients with myocardial infarction in City Hospital No. 4 of Sochi
Comparison
Invasive tactics (PCI) vs conservative tactics across Charlson Comorbidity Index strata
Design
Hospital registry-based observational study
Follow-up
1 year
Authors
Loading...
Registry analysis of invasive vs conservative MI care by comorbidity; leaves open differential benefit by Charlson score.
Observational (n=1,176)
No
Does an invasive strategy (PCI) reduce 1-year mortality compared to conservative treatment in patients with myocardial infarction across different severities of comorbidity?
Number Needed to Treat: 7
Absolute Event Rate: 5.8% vs 18.5%
Number Needed to Treat: 7
p-value: p=<0.0001
PCI significantly improves 1-year survival in patients with myocardial infarction compared to conservative treatment, with the greatest absolute benefit observed in those with severe comorbidities (CCI ≥ 3).
Зыков et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Myocardial infarction (n=1,176). Percutaneous coronary intervention vs. Conservative treatment was evaluated on 1-year mortality (p=<0.0001). Percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a significantly lower 1-year mortality compared to conservative treatment (5.8% vs 18.5%, p<0.0001), with the greatest benefit in patients with severe comorbidity.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: