ArticleIndian heart journal2018
Door-to-balloon time and the determining factors in a tertiary cardiac center in Nepal.
Article in Indian heart journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of Organisational-Level Factors on Delayed Door-to-Balloon Time among Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2024Article
- Optimizing Door-to-Balloon Time for Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention at King Abdullah Medical City.Nursing research and practice · 2024Article
- Door-to-device time and mortality in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention: insight from real world data of Thai PCI Registry.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the Causes of Door-to-Balloon Time Delays in Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction at Tehran Heart Center.The journal of Tehran Heart Center · 2023Article
- Acute coronary syndrome treatment delay in low to middle-income countries: A systematic review.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDoor-to-balloon (DTB) time of 90 min during primary angioplasty is considered as the benchmark duration. Shorter DTB time is preferable, and longer duration can have poor clinical outcomes.
methodsA cross-sectional observational study of three months in Shahid Gangalal National Heart Center was conducted in which all patients undergoing primary angioplasty were included. The DTB time was calculated, and the different determining factors were studied.
resultsSeventy-nine patients undergoing primary percutaneous intervention were studied. The median DTB time was 79 minutes (Interquartile range [IQR] 59-115 min). Forty-six (58.2%) patients had a DTB time of less than 90 min. DTB time varied significantly with direct visit vs transfer (p = 0.029) and office time visit (9 am-5 pm) vs off time (5 pm-9 am) (p = 0.012). DTB time did not differ between any infarct-related vessels (p = 0.471), number of vessels involved (p = 0.638), and the added procedures (defibrillation, thrombosuction, and temporary pacemaker insertion) (p = 0.682) during angioplasty. No significant differences were recorded according to age (p = 0.330), gender (p = 0.254), hypertension (p = 0.073), diabetes (p = 0.487), heart failure (p = 0.316), and baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (p = 0.819).
conclusionThe median DTB time in primary angioplasty was less than 90 minutes. The significant determining factors were timing of hospital visit (office vs off time) and type of visit (direct vs transfer). There can be improvement in factors determining DTB time to lower it further.
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.