Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 471

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Treatment of myocardial infarction in the United States (1990 to 1993). Observations from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction.

Rogers, W J, Bowlby, L J, Chandra, N C, French, W J, Gore, J M, Lambrew, C T, Rubison, R M, Tiefenbrunn, A J, Weaver, W D·1994·Circulation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multiple clinical trials have provided guidelines for the treatment of myocardial infarction, but there is little documentation as to how consistently their recommendations are being implemented in clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: Demographic, procedural, and outcome data from patients with acute myocardial infarction were collected at 1073 US hospitals collaborating in the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction during 1990 through 1993. Registry hospitals composed 14.4% of all US hospitals and were more likely to have a coronary care unit and invasive cardiac facilities than nonregistry US hospitals. Among 240,989 patients with myocardial infarction enrolled, 84,477 (35.1%) received thrombolytic therapy. Thrombolytic recipients were younger, more likely to be male, presented sooner after onset of symptoms, and were more likely to have localizing ECG changes. Among the 60,430 patients treated with recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (rTPA), 23.2% received it in the coronary care unit rather than in the emergency department. Elapsed time from hospital presentation to starting rTPA averaged 99 minutes (median, 57 minutes). Among patients receiving thrombolytic therapy, concomitant pharmacotherapy included intravenous heparin (96.9%), aspirin (84.0%), intravenous nitroglycerin (76.0%), oral beta-blockers (36.3%), calcium channel blockers (29.5%), and intravenous beta-blockers (17.4%). Invasive procedures in thrombolytic recipients included coronary arteriography (70.7%), angioplasty (30.3%), and bypass surgery (13.3%). Trend analyses from 1990 to 1993 suggest that the time from hospital evaluation to initiating thrombolytic therapy is shortening, usage of aspirin and beta-blockers is increasing, and usage of calcium channel blockers is decreasing. CONCLUSIONS: This large registry experience suggests that management of myocardial infarction in the United States does not yet conform to many of the recent clinical trial recommendations. Thrombolytic therapy is underused, particularly in the elderly and late presenters. Although emerging trends toward more appropriate treatment are evident, hospital delay time in initiating thrombolytic therapy remains long, aspirin and beta-blockers appear to be underused, and calcium channel blockers and invasive procedures appear to be overused.

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 · 10.1161/01.cir.90.4.2103

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.

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

Cited by

See all 471

Metadata

Authors
Rogers, W. J., Bowlby, L. J., Chandra, N. C., French, W. J., Gore, J. M., Lambrew, C. T., Rubison, R. M., Tiefenbrunn, A. J., & Weaver, W. D.
Venue
Circulation
Published
1994-10
Volume
90
Issue
4
Pages
2103-2114
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W1975363479
Cited by
471
References
0
FWCI
24.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Treatment of myocardial infarction in the United States (1990 to 1993). Observations from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.90.4.2103
The paper
Rogers, W. J., Bowlby, L. J., Chandra, N. C., French, W. J., Gore, J. M., Lambrew, C. T., Rubison, R. M., Tiefenbrunn, A. J., & Weaver, W. D. (1994). Treatment of myocardial infarction in the United States (1990 to 1993). Observations from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.90.4.2103

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.