ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2014
Value of segmental coronary calcium score on diagnosis and interventional treatment of coronary lesions by 320-slice DVCT.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledThe global coronary calcium score has been widely used in the evaluation of coronary plaque burden and cardiovascular disease events. In this study, we investigated the value of segmental coronary calcium score (SCCS) on the diagnosis and interventional treatment. We studied 87 patients with coronary angiography (CAG) and coronary CT angiography (CTA) by 320-slice dynamic volume CT (DVCT). SCCS was determined for each segmental separately. All lesions which SCCS was greater than 0 were enrolled, and were divided into three groups, mild calcification group (SCCS were less than 80), Moderate calcification group (SCCS were more than 80 and less than 200) and Severe calcification group (SCCS were more than 200). From above three groups, lesions received the intervention treatment were elected as subgroup. The position of lesions, plaque morphology, calcification proportion and interventional treatment data were analyzed. Severe calcification group were more frequent in the proximal lesions, stenosis with lesser extent, nubbly and nodular types of plaque, and the inconsistency with CAG was higher than the other two groups (P < 0.05). In the subgroup, more pre-dilatation and post-dilatation balloon were used in severe calcification group, with higher expansion pressure of balloon and stent (P < 0.05), but the diameter of stents was no difference between the three groups.
conclusionSCCS is better than GCCS in the evaluation of coronary calcification, and play an important role in the judgment of stenosis by coronary CT and in the choice of interventional therapeutic devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25232412PMC4161572What 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.