12,500 cancer patients studied: which heart attack strategy saves more lives?
NCT ID NCT06702436
First seen Jun 25, 2026 · Last updated Jun 26, 2026 · Updated 1 time
Summary
This completed study looked at 12,500 cancer patients who had a type of heart attack called NSTEMI. Researchers compared those who got invasive procedures like angiography versus those treated only with medications. The goal was to see which approach led to fewer deaths in the hospital and shorter stays.
What this could mean
Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only — not medical advice or a prediction.
- What this could lead to
- If the results show a clear benefit of one strategy, it could guide doctors in choosing the best heart attack treatment for cancer patients.
- What could go wrong
- As an observational study, it cannot prove cause and effect. Differences in patient health or cancer type may influence outcomes, not just the treatment chosen.
This is an AI summary of the original study and may miss details. Read our disclaimer.
Get updates
Get notified about this study
Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for CANCER are added.
By submitting, you agree to our Terms of use
Conditions
The condition(s) this trial relates to.
As listed by the trial registrant
The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.
Contacts and locations
Locations
-
Ankara Oncology Training and Research Hospital
Ankara, Ankara, 06200, Turkey (Türkiye)
More trials for these conditions
Other studies related to the condition(s) this trial covers.
- A good Night's sleep: could a simple program ease Cancer's toll on rest?
- Can immune cells predict how well the heart heals after an attack?
- Could sitting up make radiation therapy more comfortable?
- Can we predict dangerous side effects when combining radiation and immunotherapy?
- Family history as a shield: can culturally tailored guidance cut cancer risk?
- Could a hot bath after exercise help heal the heart?