ArticleActa Cardiologica Sinica2017
The Efficacy and Safety of Using Extension Catheters in Complex Coronary Interventions: A Single Center Experience.
Article in Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Guide extension catheters: Review of technology and future directions.Interventional cardiology · 2023Article
- A Next-Generation Guide Extension System for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions · 2021Article
- Guide catheter extension systems: Hype or a need?Indian heart journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe extension catheter was originally developed to facilitate stent delivery to challenging lesions. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of using an extension catheter in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).
methodsTwo interventional cardiologists reviewed the records of all consecutive patients who, between November 2011 and October 2015, had undergone PCI with a GuideLiner or Heartrail ST-01 extension catheter. Clinical demographics, vessel characteristics, procedural details, and outcomes were recorded.
resultsWe identified 136 (3.7%) eligible patients (male: 81.6%; mean age: 66.2 ± 11.2 years) in 3665 PCI procedures. Seventy-two (52.9%) cases required increased support to cross severely calcified lesions. The remainder were coronary tortuosity [47 (34.6%)], chronic total occlusions [35 (25.7%)], previously deployed proximal stents [16 (11.8%)], and anomalous origin of coronary artery [9 (6.6%)]. There were 43 type B and 91 type C lesions. The success rate was 86.8% (118) and the complication rate was 6.6% (7 coronary dissections, 1 thrombus formation, and 1 stent dislodgement). All complications were successfully managed using endovascular interventions. The failure rate significantly (25.5%) increased if more than 3 of 6 peri-procedural factors coexisted: 1) long lesions (> 30 mm), 2) tortuosity, 3) calcification, 4) chronic total occlusion, 5) previous intervention history, and 6) previously deployed proximal stents.
conclusionsUsing an extension catheter for challenging complex PCIs is safe and highly successful if the practitioner has adequate experience manipulating extension catheters.
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.