ArticleClinical cardiology2010
Trends in in-hospital outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention in the drug-eluting stents era.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES) dramatically changed the practice of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the 2000s. Little is known about trends in in-hospital outcome after PCI in the DES era. HYPOTHESIS: The in-hospital outcomes after PCI might be continuously improved over time.
methodsWe analyzed in-hospital outcomes of 21,667 patients who underwent PCI at Fu Wai Hospital in the past 5 years. The patients were divided into 5 groups according to the time of their intervention: group 1 (June 2004 to May 2005), group 2 (June 2005 to May 2006), group 3 (June 2006 to May 2007), group 4 (June 2007 to May 2008), and group 5 (June 2008 to May 2009).
resultsProcedural success rates for the 5 groups were 93.6%, 95%, 94.4%, 94.2%, and 94.3%, respectively (P = 0.39). Significant reduction in in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (3.1%, 3.4%, 2.8%, 1.6%, and 1.0%, P < 0.001) and need for target-vessel revascularization (2.0%, 2.2%, 1.5%, 0.4%, and 0.2%, P < 0.001) was noted over time, which was associated with a significant increase in use of DES (from 56.6% to 97.0%, P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, use of DES, dissection during procedure, left main lesion, prior myocardial infarction, and age > or = 65 years were independent predictors of major adverse cardiovascular events.
conclusionsThere were substantial reductions in in-hospital major adverse cardiac events and target-vessel revascularization over the past 5 years. This reduction was associated with the concurrent increased use of DES.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.