The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mortality rates in patients with ST-elevation vs. non-ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction: observations from an unselected cohort
Open accessAbstract
AIMS: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is categorized, according to the presenting electrocardiogram, into non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (non-STEMI), ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), or bundle branch block myocardial infarction (BBBMI). Data on the prognostic significance of these categories mainly originate from voluntary based registries or large-scale clinical trials and may be hampered by selection and information bias. The aim of this historical cohort study was to evaluate the prognostic significance of different categories of AMI in an unselected cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 1 November 1999 to 31 October 2001, patient records were reviewed from all admissions to hospitals serving a study region with 139,000 inhabitants. An Endpoint Committee determined whether patients fulfilled the European Society of Cardiology criteria of AMI. A total of 654 patients with AMI were identified. The proportion having non-STEMI, STEMI, and BBBMI was 54, 39 and 6%, and the associated 1 year mortality was 31, 21, and 55%, respectively (log rank 54, P<0.001). The more favourable outcome observed in patients with STEMI remained significant according to multivariable analysis (P=0.044). CONCLUSION: In an unselected cohort of patients admitted with AMI, the mortality was considerably higher than expected from voluntary-based registries and large-scale clinical trials. The most favourable outcome is observed in patients with STEMI.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals
GRAMBSCH, P. M., & THERNEAU, T. M. (1994) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/81.3.515 · Cited by 5,885 · cited 1×
“ACE/AT2 22% (77) 13% (33) 26% ( 11 ) 0.006 Beta-blocker 24% (84) 12% (32) 29% (12) 0.001 Aspirin 50% (176) 26% (68) 52% (22) ,0.001 Diuretics 49% (174) 22% (56) 62% (26) ,0.001 Lipid-lowering 10% (35) 5% (14) 7% (3) 0.14”
Influential
Cited by
Roffi, M., Patrono, C., Collet, J.-P., Mueller, C., Valgimigli, M., Andreotti, F., Bax, J. J., Borger, M. A., Brotons, C., Chew, D. P., et al. (2016) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehv320 · Cited by 8,261
Meli, L., Alcántara, C., Sumner, J. A., Swan, B., Chang, B. P., & Edmondson, D. (2019) · Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1177/1359105317705982 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Terkelsen, C. J., Lassen, J. F., Nørgaard, B. L., Gerdes, J. C., Jensen, T., Gøtzsche, L. B.-H., Nielsen, T. T., & Andersen, H. R.
- Venue
- European Heart Journal
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-11-23
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 18-26
- ISSN
- 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
- 1522-9645
- OpenAlex
- W2001332343
- Cited by
- 311
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.99
- 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: Mortality rates in patients with ST-elevation vs. non-ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction: observations from an unselected cohort. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi002
- The paper
- Terkelsen, C. J., Lassen, J. F., Nørgaard, B. L., Gerdes, J. C., Jensen, T., Gøtzsche, L. B.-H., Nielsen, T. T., & Andersen, H. R. (2005). Mortality rates in patients with ST-elevation vs. non-ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction: observations from an unselected cohort. European Heart Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi002
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.