Trial reportAmerican heart journal2014
Delay in reperfusion with transradial percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Might some delays be acceptable?
Trial report in American heart journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radial Artery Access for Acute Coronary Syndromes: a Review of Current Evidence.Current cardiology reports · 2022Review
- Association of adoption of transradial access for percutaneous coronary intervention in ST elevation myocardial infarction with door-to-balloon time.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2020Observational
- Alternative access site choice after initial radial access site failure for coronary angiography and intervention.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2018Article
- Transradial Artery Access in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2018Review
- Measuring quality in electrophysiology.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) suggest benefits for the transradial approach to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, transradial PCI may delay reperfusion, leading to its avoidance. We sought to quantify the delay in reperfusion from transradial PCI ("transradial delay") that would need to be introduced to offset the potential mortality benefit of transradial PCI, compared with transfemoral, observed in RCTs.
methodsWe developed a decision-analytic model to compare transfemoral and transradial PCI in STEMI. Thirty-day mortality rates were estimated by pooling STEMI patients from 2 RCTs comparing transfemoral and transradial PCI. We projected the impact of transradial delay using estimates of the increase in mortality associated with door-to-balloon time delays. Sensitivity analyses were performed to understand the impact of uncertainty in assumptions.
resultsIn the base case, a transradial delay of 83.0 minutes was needed to offset the mortality benefit of transradial PCI. When the mortality benefit of transradial PCI was one-quarter that observed in RCTs, the delay associated with equivalent mortality was 20.9 minutes. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, transradial PCI was preferred over transfemoral PCI in 97.5% of simulations when transradial delay was 30 minutes and in 79.0% of simulations when delay was 60 minutes.
conclusionsA substantial transradial delay is required to eliminate even a fraction of the mortality benefit observed with transradial PCI in RCTs. Results were robust to changing multiple assumptions and have implications for operators reluctant to transition to transradial PCI in STEMI because of concern for delaying reperfusion.
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.