ArticleHeart and vessels2015
Differences in ward-to-cath lab systolic blood pressure predicts long-term adverse outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2015. 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.
- Article
- Incremental predictive value of the combined use of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and systolic blood pressure difference after successful drug-eluting stent implantation.Cardiology journal · 2023Article
- Higher visit-to-visit intra-dialytic blood pressure is associated with the progression of aortic valve stenosis in chronic hemodialysis patients.Heart and vessels · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We sought to investigate the effect of ward-to-cath lab blood pressure (BP) differences on long-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES). There are limited data available on the association between PCI with DES and BP differences on long-term clinical outcomes. This study enrolled 994 patients who underwent PCI with DES from March 2003 to August 2007. Resting BP was measured in a ward environment before transfer to the cardiac catheterization lab (cath lab), and again when the patient was laid down on the cath lab table. Patients were divided into two groups according to the difference in ward-to-cath lab systolic BP. Large difference group (n = 383) was defined as the absolute systolic difference of >20 mmHg and small difference group (n = 424) as the absolute systolic difference of ≤20 mmHg. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality, cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke. A total of 807 patients (mean age 60 ± 10 years, 522 males) received follow-up for 5.1 ± 2.4 years. The rate of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the large difference group compared to the small difference group (6.6 vs. 2.8 %; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.43; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.22-4.83; p = 0.012). There were higher cardiac deaths seen in the large difference group compared to the small difference group (3.9 vs. 1.4 %; adjusted HR 2.84; 95 % CI 1.1-7.31; p = 0.031). Stroke (2.4 vs. 1.2 %, p = 0.125) and TVR (3.7 vs. 1.7 %, p = 0.051) had higher trends in the large difference group compared to the small difference group. The composite of primary endpoints (all-cause mortality, cardiac death, nonfatal MI and stroke) occurred more frequently in the large difference group compared to the small difference group (10.0 vs. 6.4 %; adjusted HR 1.71; 95 % CI 1.04-2.81; p = 0.033). A difference in ward-to-cath lab systolic BP of >20 mmHg may contribute to increased adverse outcomes in the form of all-cause mortality and cardiac deaths in patients undergoing PCI with DES.
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.