SynthesisBMC medicine2012
Coronary collaterals and risk for restenosis after percutaneous coronary interventions: a meta-analysis.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) and Its Role in the Cardiovascular System.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Adenosine-Induced Coronary Steal Is Observed in Patients Presenting With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
- Impact of coronary collateralization on long-term clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetic patients after successful recanalization of chronic total occlusion.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2020Observational
- A Comparison of Fully-Coupled 3D In-Stent Restenosis Simulations toFrontiers in physiology · 2017Article
- Myocardial viability in coronary artery chronic total occlusion.Current cardiology reports · 2015Review
- The dynamics of the coronary collateral circulation.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2014Review
- The coronary collateral circulation--past, present and future.Current cardiology reviews · 2014Article
- Historical aspects and relevance of the human coronary collateral circulation.Current cardiology reviews · 2014Review
- Therapeutic approaches in the stimulation of the coronary collateral circulation.Current cardiology reviews · 2014Review
- Pathophysiology of coronary collaterals.Current cardiology reviews · 2014Review
- The collateral circulation of the heart.BMC medicine · 2013Review
- The role of coronary artery collaterals in the preservation of left ventricular function: a study to address a long-standing controversy.Cardiovascular journal of AfricaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.