ArticleHeart and vessels2013
Left circumflex coronary artery is protected against no-reflow phenomenon following percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary artery disease.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A simple and rapid method for identification of lesions at high risk for the no-reflow phenomenon immediately before elective coronary stent implantation.Heart and vessels · 2016Article
- To kiss or not to kiss? Impact of final kissing-balloon inflation on early and long-term results of percutaneous coronary intervention for bifurcation lesions.Heart and vessels · 2014Article
- TLR3 and TLR4 as potential clinically biomarkers of cardiovascular risk in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients.Heart and vessels · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the positive impact of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on reducing mortality, a small percentage of patients experience poor myocardial reperfusion following PCI. However, factors associated with no-reflow remain unclear. We investigated clinical factors associated with no-reflow following PCI for coronary artery disease (CAD). We retrospectively analyzed 1622 consecutive CAD patients who underwent PCI over a 5-year period at our institution. Patients were divided into two groups according to the presence (n = 31) or absence (n = 1591) of no-reflow, defined as Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow grade <3 after PCI. No significant differences in patient characteristics or PCI strategy were seen between the no-reflow and normal flow groups. The incidence of no-reflow was significantly lower in the left circumflex artery (LCx) than in the left anterior descending artery (LAD) (P = 0.0015), with no differences in characteristics or PCI strategy between these two target vessels. Multivariate analysis revealed that involvement of the LCx was an independent protective factor against no-reflow (odds ratio 0.14, 95 % confidence interval 0.02-0.98, P = 0.044). In conclusion, LCx as the target vessel was protective against no-reflow compared with LAD following PCI for CAD. Our results suggest that embolic protection devices may be unnecessary in CAD patients with involvement of LCx.
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.