@kaulcsmc @GAggarwalMD @djc795 @BruckelJeffrey @DrDamluji @SVRaoMD @SCAI @SrihariNaiduMD @SripalBangalore @DLBHATTMD @SJcardio @AnkurKalraMD @mmamas1973 @ShariqShamimMD @chadialraies @fischman_david @RajTayalMD @ajaykirtane @TTelila @KoushikReddyMD @GreggWStone @Stent4U @SahilAgrawalMD @Drroxmehran @CardioIAN @KrishnaDrT @ChetRihal @achat26 @AshishPershad @arefmrahman @AnkurGuptaMD @HadyLichaaMD @DavidLBrownMD There are some replicative studies including this review & meta-analysis. None address the key issue of confounding which is critical and raised by the NEJM article. But looking at population trends raises its own concerns - mainly the ecological fallacy. https://t.co/MjRKBS1c6K
Coronary intervention door-to-balloon time and outcomes in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis.
Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
Mentions per month
Apr 2018 – Sep 2020Where it's discussed
-
News2 articles
-
X / Twitter1 posts
-
YouTube1 videos
AI synopsis
What people are saying
Discussions include references to how shorter treatment times significantly reduce mortality in STEMI patients and highlight critical points such as the nonlinear relationship between delays and outcomes, reflecting active engagement. Tone varies from supportive to critically analytical, with phrases like 'emphasize the importance' and notes on limitations, indicating an interest in both practical impact and scientific rigor.
Most discussions acknowledge the importance of reducing door-to-balloon time for better patient outcomes, reflecting general support for the article's conclusions.
Posts demonstrate high interest by exploring implications and critiques of the study, indicating active engagement with the topic.
Many commenters reference specific aspects like nonlinear risk relationships and population trends, suggesting moderate to deep discussion.
There is recognition that this research could influence clinical practices, although some mention concerns about confounding factors and ecological fallacies.
Abstract in brief
- This meta-analysis of 32 studies with nearly 300,000 patients found that longer door-to-balloon times (over 90 minutes) in emergency treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) significantly increase the risk of both short-term and long-term mortality.
- A nonlinear relationship was observed between delay time and risk, with the impact of delay being more pronounced in patients who presented early after symptom onset and less so in those with longer prehospital delays.
- The findings emphasize that reducing door-to-balloon time is crucial for improving outcomes, especially considering how prehospital delays can modify this effect, explaining why some populations see less benefit despite efforts to shorten treatment times.
Top posts
Most liked on X and BlueskyAll mentions
Impact of Door-to-Balloon Delay on Myocardial Infarction Outcomes
Longer door-to-balloon times over 90 minutes increase short-term and long-term mortality risks in STEMI patients. Prehospital delays can modify this effect, emphasizing the importance of timely intervention for better…
@kaulcsmc @GAggarwalMD @djc795 @BruckelJeffrey @DrDamluji @SVRaoMD @SCAI @SrihariNaiduMD @SripalBangalore @DLBHATTMD @SJcardio @AnkurKalraMD @mmamas1973 @ShariqShamimMD @chadialraies @fischman_david @RajTayalMD @ajaykirtane @TTelila @KoushikReddyMD @GreggWStone @Stent4U @SahilAgrawalMD @Drroxmehran @CardioIAN @KrishnaDrT @ChetRihal @achat26 @AshishPershad @arefmrahman @AnkurGuptaMD @HadyLichaaMD @DavidLBrownMD There are some replicative studies including this review & meta-analysis. None address the key issue of confounding which is critical and raised by the NEJM article. But looking at population trends raises its own concerns - mainly the ecological fallacy. https://t.co/MjRKBS1c6K
BN