Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 799

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Outcomes in Patients with Acute Non–Q-Wave Myocardial Infarction Randomly Assigned to an Invasive as Compared with a Conservative Management Strategy

Open access
Boden, William E., O'Rourke, Robert A., Crawford, Michael H., Blaustein, Alvin S., Deedwania, Prakash C., Zoble, Robert G., Wexler, Laura F., Kleiger, Robert E., Pepine, Carl J., Ferry, David R., Chow, Bruce K., Lavori, Philip W.·1998·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Non-Q-wave myocardial infarction is usually managed according to an "invasive" strategy (i.e., one of routine coronary angiography followed by myocardial revascularization). METHODS: We randomly assigned 920 patients to either "invasive" management (462 patients) or "conservative" management, defined as medical therapy and noninvasive testing, with subsequent invasive management if indicated by the development of spontaneous or inducible ischemia (458 patients), within 72 hours of the onset of a non-Q-wave infarction. Death or nonfatal infarction made up the combined primary end point. RESULTS: During an average follow-up of 23 months, 152 events (80 deaths and 72 nonfatal infarctions) occurred in 138 patients who had been randomly assigned to the invasive strategy, and 139 events (59 deaths and 80 nonfatal infarctions) in 123 patients assigned to the conservative strategy (P=0.35). Patients assigned to the invasive strategy had worse clinical outcomes during the first year of follow-up. The number of patients with one of the components of the primary end point (death or nonfatal myocardial infarction) and the number who died were significantly higher in the invasive-strategy group at hospital discharge (36 vs. 15 patients, P=0.004, for the primary end point; 21 vs. 6, P=0.007, for death), at one month (48 vs. 26, P=0.012; 23 vs. 9, P=0.021), and at one year (111 vs. 85, P=0.05; 58 vs. 36, P= 0.025). Overall mortality during follow-up did not differ significantly between patients assigned to the conservative-strategy group and those assigned to the invasive-strategy group (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.51 to 1.01). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with non-Q-wave myocardial infarction do not benefit from routine, early invasive management consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization. A conservative, ischemia-guided initial approach is both safe and effective.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm199806183382501

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 799

Metadata

Authors
Boden, W. E., O'Rourke, R. A., Crawford, M. H., Blaustein, A. S., Deedwania, P. C., Zoble, R. G., Wexler, L. F., Kleiger, R. E., Pepine, C. J., Ferry, D. R., Chow, B. K., & Lavori, P. W.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1998-06-18
Volume
338
Issue
25
Pages
1785-1792
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2342319591
Cited by
799
References
2
FWCI
72.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Outcomes in Patients with Acute Non–Q-Wave Myocardial Infarction Randomly Assigned to an Invasive as Compared with a Conservative Management Strategy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199806183382501
The paper
Boden, W. E., O'Rourke, R. A., Crawford, M. H., Blaustein, A. S., Deedwania, P. C., Zoble, R. G., Wexler, L. F., Kleiger, R. E., Pepine, C. J., Ferry, D. R., Chow, B. K., & Lavori, P. W. (1998). Outcomes in Patients with Acute Non–Q-Wave Myocardial Infarction Randomly Assigned to an Invasive as Compared with a Conservative Management Strategy. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199806183382501

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.