Observational studyMedicine2018
Effect of intra-coronary administration of tirofiban through aspiration catheter on patients over 60 years with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Observational study in Medicine, 2018. 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.
- Clinical outcome of intracoronary versus intravenous high-dose bolus administration of tirofiban in diabetic patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.Cardiovascular journal of AfricaTrial
- Long Inflation at Stent Deployment in Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Myocardial Infarction.Circulation reports · 2025Article
- Long non-coding RNA LUCAT1 inhibits myocardial oxidative stress and apoptosis after myocardial infarction via targeting microRNA-181a-5p.Bioengineered · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of 2 approaches for intra-coronary administration of tirofiban (aspiration catheter versus guiding catheter) in patients over 60 years of age undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). It has been suggested that the administration of tirofiban by intra-coronary injection could promote drug absorption in the diseased region and enhance the inhibition of platelet aggregation, decreasing bleeding rates, but little is known about the comparative efficiency and safety of using guiding catheter versus aspiration catheter for delivery.Eighty-nine patients over 60 years of age with STEMI undergoing PCI were randomly divided into 2 groups according to the injection route for intracoronary administration of tirofiban [guiding catheter (n = 41) and aspiration catheter (n = 48)]. Baseline features, epicardial and myocardial perfusion, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), and bleeding rate were compared.No differences in age, gender, and history of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, and so on were observed (P > .05). The patients in the aspiration catheter group generally had a higher incidence of cerebral vascular disease. Compared with those in the guiding catheter group, patients in the aspiration catheter group obtained more favorable myocardial perfusion (P < .05). In-hospital and at 3-month and 6-month follow-ups, the MACCE rate and frequency of bleeding events were similar between the 2 groups (P > .05).Intra-coronary delivery of tirofiban through aspiration catheter led to better myocardial perfusion in STEMI patients over 60 years of age undergoing PCI compared with intra-coronary injection of tirofiban through guiding catheter. The 2 delivery routes were associated with similar rates of MACCEs and bleeding events.
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.