Observational studyHeart and vessels2016
Does reducing ischemia time justify to catheterize firstly the culprit artery in every primary PCI?
Observational study in Heart and vessels, 2016. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
No consensus exists about which coronary artery should be firstly catheterized in primary PCIs. Initial catheterization of the "culprit artery" could reduce reperfusion time. However, complete knowledge of coronary anatomy could modify revascularization strategy. The objective of the study was to analyze this issue in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary PCI. PCIs were performed in 384 consecutive patients. Choice of ipsilateral approach (IA): starting with a guiding catheter for the angiography and PCI of the "culprit artery", or contralateral approach (CA): starting with a diagnostic catheter for the "non-culprit artery" and completing the angiography and PCI of the culprit with a guiding catheter was left to the operator. Differences between two approaches regarding reperfusion time, acute events or revascularization strategies were analyzed. There were no differences between two approaches regarding reperfusion time or clinical events. When the left coronary artery was responsible, IA was more frequent (76.4 vs 22.6 %), but when it was the right coronary artery, CA was preferred (20 vs 80 %); p < 0.0001. With CA, bare metal stents (BMS) were more used than drug eluting (DES) (60.8 vs 39.2 %) inversely than with IA (BMS 41.3 vs DES 59.7 %; p < 0.0001). With CA there were more patients with left main or multivessel disease in which revascularization was completed with non-urgent surgery (4.13 vs 2.4 %, p < 0.0001). Initial CA does not involve higher reperfusion time. Furthermore, overall knowledge of coronary anatomy offers more options in revascularization strategy and may imply a change in management. Despite the need to individualize each case, contralateral approach may be the first option with the exception of unstable patients.
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.