Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21110199›Full record

ArticleHeart and vessels2011

Comparison of the effects of nitroprusside versus nicorandil on the slow/no-reflow phenomenon during coronary interventions for acute myocardial infarction.

Renpei Kobatake, Tetsuya Sato, Yasukazu Fujiwara, Haruki Sunami, Ryo Yoshioka, Tetsuya Ikeda, Hironori Saito, Toru Ujihira

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Heart and vessels, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Renpei KobatakeDepartment of Cardiology, Japanese Red Cross Okayama Hospital, 2-1-1 Aoe Kita-ku, Okayama 700-8607, Japan.
Tetsuya Sato
Yasukazu Fujiwara
Haruki Sunami
Ryo Yoshioka
Tetsuya Ikeda
Hironori Saito
Toru Ujihira
Okayama Red Cross General Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although slow/no-reflow is a serious problem complicating primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and is associated with a poor prognosis, its efficacious treatment remains problematic. We compared the acute, in-hospital and long-term (1 year) effects of nitroprusside (NTP) with those of nicorandil (NC) on the slow/no-reflow phenomenon. Forty-nine of 442 consecutive patients with AMI who underwent primary PCI complicated by slow/no-reflow and who received intracoronary NTP (n = 25) or NC (n = 24) administration were studied. Both NTP and NC induced significant improvements in coronary flow, with increases in TIMI flow grade from 1.64 ± 0.62 to 2.74 ± 0.36 (p < 0.001) and 1.60 ± 0.86 to 2.23 ± 0.91 (p < 0.001), and in corrected TIMI frame count from 37.8 ± 15.1 to 13.7 ± 7.1 (p < 0.001) and 30.8 ± 20.7 to 19.3 ± 17.9 (p < 0.001), respectively. The degree of improvement in TIMI flow grade (post-pre/pre) and TIMI frame count (pre-post/pre) showed that NTP was more effective than NC (NTP vs. NC: 0.88 ± 0.79, 0.37 ± 0.37, p = 0.008; 0.59 ± 0.23, 0.36 ± 0.27, p = 0.003, respectively). Congestive heart failure did not tend to last beyond 3 days after onset in the NTP group, which was more than in the NC group, during hospitalization (1/25, 4/24, p = 0.143, respectively). At the 1-year follow-up, the NTP group tended to show more improvement than the NC group in MACE (5/25, 9/24, p = 0.175, respectively). NTP is a more effective treatment for slow/no-reflow associated with PCI in patients with AMI and may improve long-term clinical outcomes compared with NC.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAngioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryChi-Square DistributionCoronary CirculationFemaleHumansJapanMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionNicorandilNitroprussideNo-Reflow PhenomenonTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeNicorandilNitroprussideVasodilator Agents

Identifiers

PMID21110199
OpenAlexW1968606087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.