Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22720974›Full record

SynthesisBMC medicine2012

Coronary collaterals and risk for restenosis after percutaneous coronary interventions: a meta-analysis.

Pascal Meier, Andreas Indermuehle, Bertram Pitt, Tobias Traupe, Stefano F de Marchi, Tom Crake, Guido Knapp, Alexandra J Lansky, Christian Seiler

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Pathophysiology of coronary collaterals.Current cardiology reviews · 2014
    Review
  11. Review
  12. 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

9 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Pascal MeierThe Heart Hospital London, University College London Hospital Trust, London, UK. pascalmeier74@gmail.com
Andreas Indermuehle
Bertram Pitt
Tobias Traupe
Stefano F de Marchi
Tom Crake
Guido Knapp
Alexandra J Lansky
Christian Seiler
University Hospital of Bern · CHKing's College London · GBRoyal London Hospital · GBTU Dortmund University · DEUniversity College Hospital at Westmoreland Street · GBUniversity Medical Center · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe benefit of the coronary collateral circulation (natural bypass network) on survival is well established. However, data derived from smaller studies indicates that coronary collaterals may increase the risk for restenosis after percutaneous coronary interventions. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies was to explore the impact of the collateral circulation on the risk for restenosis.

methodsWe searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science databases (2001 to 15 July 2011). Random effects models were used to calculate summary risk ratios (RR) for restenosis. The primary endpoint was angiographic restenosis > 50%.

resultsA total of 7 studies enrolling 1,425 subjects were integrated in this analysis. On average across studies, the presence of a good collateralization was predictive for restenosis (risk ratio (RR) 1.40 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.80); P = 0.009). This risk ratio was consistent in the subgroup analyses where collateralization was assessed with intracoronary pressure measurements (RR 1.37 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.83); P = 0.038) versus visual assessment (RR 1.41 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.99); P = 0.049). For the subgroup of patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD), the RR for restenosis with 'good collaterals' was 1.64 (95% CI 1.14 to 2.35) compared to 'poor collaterals' (P = 0.008). For patients with acute myocardial infarction, however, the RR for restenosis with 'good collateralization' was only 1.23 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.69); P = 0.212.

conclusionsThe risk of restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increased in patients with good coronary collateralization. Assessment of the coronary collateral circulation before PCI may be useful for risk stratification and for the choice of antiproliferative measures (drug-eluting stent instead bare-metal stent, cilostazol).

Indexed as

Myocardial RevascularizationCoronary Artery BypassCoronary StenosisCoronary VesselsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRecurrenceRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID22720974
PMCPMC3386894
OpenAlexW2091199100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.