ArticleCoronary artery disease2019
Outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention and comparison among scoring systems in predicting procedural success in elderly patients (≥ 75 years) with chronic total occlusion.
Article in Coronary artery disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Predictors of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events after percutaneous coronary intervention in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC geriatrics · 2024Pooled it
- Performance of the J-CTO score versus other risk scores for predicting procedural difficulty in coronary chronic total occlusion interventions.Annals of medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusions in the elderly: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical cardiology · 2021Pooled it
- Percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion in octogenarians: a propensity score study.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Procedural Success Prediction Scoring Systems Used in Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Chronic Total Occlusions: A Systematic Evaluation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence-based data on percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with chronic total occlusion (CTO) and comparison among different scoring systems have not been well established. PATIENTS AND
methodsA total of 246 consecutive patients were stratified into two groups according to the age: elderly group (age≥ 75 years, n = 68) and nonelderly group (age < 75 years, n = 178). Clinical and angiographic characteristics including the Synergy Between PCI With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery score, in-hospital major adverse cardiac events, procedural success rates, and predictive capacity of four scoring systems [J-CTO, Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention (PROGRESS CTO), clinical and lesion-related (CL), and ostial location, Rentrop grade < 2, age ≥ 75 years (ORA) scores] were examined.
resultsTriple-vessel disease and the Synergy Between PCI With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery score in the elderly group were significantly higher than those in the nonelderly group (73.53 vs. 53.93%, P = 0.005; 31.39 ± 7.68 vs. 27.85 ± 7.16, P = 0.001, respectively). The in-hospital major adverse cardiac event rates, vascular access complication rates, and major bleeding rates were similar between the elderly and the nonelderly group (2.94 vs. 2.25%, P = 0.669; 1.47 vs. 0.56%, P = 0.477; 2.94 vs. 1.12%, P = 0.306, respectively). By contrast, the procedural success rate was statistically lower in the elderly group than that in the nonelderly group (73.53 vs. 84.83%, P = 0.040). All the four scoring systems showed a moderate predictive capacity [area under the curve (AUC) for J-CTO score: 0.806, P < 0.0001; AUC for PROGRESS CTO score: 0.727, P < 0.0001; AUC for CL score: 0.800, P < 0.0001; AUC for ORA score: 0.672, P < 0.0001, respectively]. Compared with the ORA score, the J-CTO score, and the CL score showed a significant advantage in predicting procedural success among overall patients (ΔAUC = 0.134, P = 0.0122; ΔAUC = 0.128, P = 0.0233, respectively).
conclusionDespite the lower procedural success rate, percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with CTO is feasible and safe. J-CTO, PROGRESS, ORA, and CL scoring systems have moderate discriminatory capacity.
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.