Trial reportHeart and vessels2019
Impact of vascular access site on procedural time of endomyocardial biopsy.
Trial report in Heart and vessels, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A phantom for targeted endomyocardial biopsy training.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 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
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is widely used for the diagnosis of unexplained ventricular dysfunction and for assessment of cardiac allograft rejection. But, the impact of vascular access site on procedural time of EMB is not well-known. From February 2014 to May 2016, consecutive patients requiring EMB were prospectively enrolled in this study. Vascular access, by either the jugular or femoral vein, was randomly assigned. EMB was randomly performed by 3 pre-identified physicians based on practical experience in EMB. Each case was required to obtain at least 3 samples. The primary endpoint was to compare the total time spent in acquiring EMB from the right ventricular septum between the jugular and femoral vein access groups. The secondary endpoints were evaluation of each set (1st to 3rd attempt) of EMB times and safety. In addition, factors affecting the EMB procedural times were evaluated. A total of 49 consecutive patients requiring EMB (3.9 attempts/patient) were enrolled (the jugular group: 23, the femoral group: 26), and 156 myocardial samples (3.2 samples/patient) were obtained. There were no significant differences in total biopsy procedural time between the 2 groups (16.3 ± 7.4 vs. 20.8 ± 9.9 min, p = 0.075). Independent predictors for longer procedural time of the 1st attempt included femoral access, non-expert operators, and larger right atrium according to multiple linear regression analysis. The complication rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups, except for catheter kinking as a technical factor. Total biopsy time was not significantly different between the jugular and femoral venous access groups. However, the 1st attempt EMB procedural time by non-expert operators was longer when using the femoral approach, especially in cases involving a larger right atrium diameter.
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.