ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2017
Gender-based acute outcome in percutaneous coronary intervention of chronic total coronary occlusion.
Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gender-based differences in primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with myocardial infarction from a developing country: A retrospective cohort study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- Procedural Outcomes in Patients Treated with Percutaneous Coronary Interventions within Chronic Total Occlusions Stratified by Gender.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Sex differences in procedural and clinical outcomes following rotational atherectomy.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2020Observational
- Temporal changes in outcomes of women and men undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion: 2005-2013.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2018Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of total chronic coronary occlusion (CTO) still remains a major challenge. Insignificant data are reported in the literature about gender differences in CTO-PCI in the era of new drug-eluting stents. In this study we analysed the impact of gender on procedural characteristics, complications and acute results.
methodsBetween 2010-2015 we included 780 consecutive patients. They underwent PCI for at least one CTO. Antegrade and retrograde CTO techniques were applied.
resultsPatients undergoing CTO-PCI were mainly men (84%). Male patients were younger (66.9 years ±10.6 vs. 61.1 years ±10.4; p < 0.001), more often smokers, but less frequently had a history of coronary artery disease (24.4% vs. 32.7%; p = 0.085) compared with female patients. Female patients more often had diabetes mellitus (29.6% vs. 26.7%; p = 0.55) and hypertension (82.7% vs. 80.7%; p = 0.55). There were no differences with respect to the amount of contrast fluid, fluoroscopy time and examination time as well as to the length of the stent or the number of the stents. The stent diameter was slightly smaller in women, which was not surprising because the lumen calibre tends to be smaller in women than in men (3.0 mm (2.5-3) vs. 3.0 mm (3-3.5); p < 0.001). The success rates were 81.0% in women and 80.1% in men. There was no significant interaction between gender and procedural success and complication rates.
conclusionsOur retrospective study suggests that women and men have a comparable success rate at a low complication rate after recanalisation of CTO.
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.