ArticleActa Cardiologica Sinica2019
A Propensity Score Matching Analysis of Transradial Versus Transfemoral Approaches in Octogenarians Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Article in Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Considering ISCHEMIA in the Context of FAME and FAME 2: A Call for the Universal Adoption of Invasive Ischemia-Guided Coronary Intervention Approach in Chronic Coronary Syndrome.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2020Article
- Clinical Impact of High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin T on the Chronic Phase of Stable Angina after a Successful Initial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the widespread adoption of the transradial approach for elderly patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in clinical practice, data on octogenarians in China are still relatively limited. This study sought to compare both the safety and efficacy of transradial intervention (TRI) and transfemoral intervention (TFI) in octogenarians in China.
methodsWe identified 254 octogenarians who underwent PCIs in Fuwai Hospital, Beijing, China between January 1, 2006 and April 30, 2011. TRI was used in 184 patients and TFI was used in 70 patients. Incidence rates of in- hospital and 1-year clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups. Ono-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to control for potential bias. A total of 48 pairs were matched.
resultsBaseline and procedural characteristics were balanced between the TRI and TFI groups. Patients undergoing TRI had significantly fewer access site complications (10.3% vs. 20.0%, p = 0.040), although this difference did not remain significant in propensity score-matched patients (10.4% vs. 22.9%, p = 0.100). After PSM, the patients undergoing TRI were less likely to have major post-PCI bleeding (0 vs. 12.5%, odds ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.58, p = 0.026). There were no statistical differences in the incidence rates of major adverse cardiac events (a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) and their components both during hospitalization and at 1-year.
conclusionsCompared with TFI, TRI was safer and more feasible for octogenarians undergoing PCI.
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.