Observational studyMedicine2016
Manual Thrombus Aspiration and the Improved Survival of Patients With Unstable Angina Pectoris Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (30 Months Follow-Up).
Observational study in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Revealing the Common Mechanisms of Scutellarin in Angina Pectoris and Ischemic Stroke Treatment via a Network Pharmacology Approach.Chinese journal of integrative medicine · 2021Article
- The value of Sonoclot detection technology to guide the clinical medication of the perioperative anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing emergent PCI.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2017Article
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 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinical effect of intracoronary thrombus aspiration during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with unstable angina pectoris is unknown. In this study, we aimed to assess how thrombus aspiration during percutaneous coronary intervention affects in-hospital and 30-month mortality and complications in patients with unstable angina pectoris.We undertook an observational cohort study of 645 consecutive unstable angina pectoris patients who had performed percutaneous coronary intervention from February 2011 to March 2013. Before intervention, 159 patients who had culprit lesion with thrombus were randomly assigned to group 1 (thrombus aspiration group) and group 2 (stand-alone percutaneous coronary intervention group). All patients were followed-up 30 months until August 2015.Thrombus aspiration was performed in 64 patients (46%) whose cardiac markers (ie, creatinine kinase [CK-MB] mass and troponin T) were significantly lower after percutaneous coronary intervention than in those of group 2 (CK-MB mass: 3.80 ± 1.11 vs 4.23 ± 0.89, P = 0.012; troponin T: 0.012 ± 0.014 vs 0.018 ± 0.008, P = 0.002). Left ventricular ejection fraction at 6, 12, and 24 months postintervention was significantly higher in the group 1. During a mean follow-up period of 28.87 ± 6.28 months, mortality rates were 6.3% in the group 1 versus 12.9% in the group 2. Thrombus aspiration was also associated with significantly less long-term mortality in unstable angina pectoris patients (adjusted HR: 4.61, 95% CI: 1.16-18.21, P = 0.029).Thrombus aspiration in the context of unstable angina pectoris is associated with a limited elevation in cardiac enzymes during intervention that minimises microembolization and significantly improves both of epicardial flow and myocardial perfusion, as shown by angiographic TIMI flow grade and frame count. Thrombus aspiration during percutaneous coronary intervention in unstable angina pectoris patients has better survival over a 30-month follow-up period.
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.