Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25276294›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of cardiology2014

Thrombus aspiration in acute myocardial infarction: Rationale and indication.

Gennaro Sardella, Rocco Edoardo Stio

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of cardiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gennaro SardellaGennaro Sardella, Rocco Edoardo Stio, Department of Cardiovascular, Respiratory, Nephrologic and Geriatric Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Rocco Edoardo StioGennaro Sardella, Rocco Edoardo Stio, Department of Cardiovascular, Respiratory, Nephrologic and Geriatric Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Policlinico Umberto I · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reperfusion of myocardial tissue is the main goal of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) with stent implantation in the treatment of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Although PPCI has contributed to a dramatic reduction in cardiovascular mortality over three decades, normal myocardial perfusion is not restored in approximately one-third of these patients. Several mechanisms may contribute to myocardial reperfusion failure, in particular distal embolization of the thrombus and plaque fragments. In fact, this is a possible complication during PPCI, resulting in microvascular obstruction and no-reflow phenomenon. The presence of a visible thrombus at the time of PPCI in patients with STEMI is associated with poor procedural and clinical outcomes. Aspiration thrombectomy during PPCI has been proposed to prevent embolization in order to improve these outcomes. In fact, the most recent guidelines suggest the routine use of manual aspiration thrombectomy during PPCI (class IIa) to reduce the risk of distal embolization. Even though numerous international studies have been reported, there are conflicting results on the clinical impact of aspiration thrombectomy during PPCI. In particular, data on long-term clinical outcomes are still inconsistent. In this review, we have carefully analyzed literature data on thrombectomy during PPCI, taking into account the most recent studies and meta-analyses.

Indexed as

Myocardial infarctionMyocardial reperfusionNo-reflowThrombectomyThrombus aspiration

Identifiers

PMID25276294
PMCPMC4176802
OpenAlexW2062801362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.