ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2017
Evaluation of safety and efficacy of elective PCI in patients with cardiac insufficiency.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dynamic coronary roadmap in percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of Outcomes of Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention between Complex and High-Risk Intervention in Indicated Patients (CHIP) versus Non-CHIP.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We analyzed the safety and the efficacy of the treatment with elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with coronary heart disease complicated with cardiac insufficiency. We enrolled 217 patients diagnosed with chronic ischemic heart disease complicated with cardiac failure. According to the type of treatment they received, patients were divided into 3 groups: i) The conservative treatment group with 60 patients (they received standard medication); ii) the early PCI group with 82 cases (their condition was stabilized, surgical risk was assessed and PCI was taken as early as possible); and iii) the advanced PCI group with 75 cases (ischemic myocardium was corrected and then elective PCI was applied and for aggravated myocardial ischemia cases, PCI was applied after assessing the risk of surgery). Follow-up visits were set for approximately 3 years and clinical outcomes were compared. Our results showed that the survival time in the early PCI group was significantly prolonged and the survival rate was considerably increased during 3 years. Left ventricular ejection fraction in the early PCI group markedly increased and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter and pro-BNP level decreased significantly. The occurrence rates of perioperative complications in the early PCI group and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) during the follow-up period were significantly reduced. Quality of life scores in the early PCI group markedly improved. We concluded that in patients with coronary heart disease complicated with cardiac insufficiency, early PCI treatment was safe and effective.
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.