ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2019
A Novel Large Animal Model of Thrombogenic Coronary Microembolization.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular mechanisms of coronary microembolization-induced MINOCA.Basic research in cardiology · 2026Review
- Translational Strategies for Developing and Evaluating Transcatheter Devices in Swine Heart Failure Models.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Past, Present and Future of Regenerative Gene Therapy for Ischemic Heart Failure.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2026Review
- Swine Model of Myocardial Infarction Induced by Ischemia-Reperfusion and Embolization.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- MicroRNA-136-5p protects cardiomyocytes from coronary microembolization through the inhibition of pyroptosis.Apoptosis : an international journal on programmed cell death · 2022Article
- A fresh look at coronary microembolization.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2022Review
- Preclinical models of congestive heart failure, advantages, and limitations for application in clinical practice.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Review
- Coronary microvascular adaptations distal to epicardial artery stenosis.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2021Review
- Large Animal Models of Heart Failure: A Translational Bridge to Clinical Success.JACC. Basic to translational science · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary microembolization is one of the main causes of the "no-reflow" phenomenon, which commonly occurs after reperfusion of an occluded coronary artery. Given its high incidence and the fact that it has been proven to be an independent predictor of cardiac morbidity and mortality, there is an imperative need to study its underlying mechanisms and pathophysiology. Large animal models are essential to perform translational studies. Currently there is no animal model that recapitulates a clinical scenario of thrombogenic microembolism with preceding myocardial ischemia. Therefore, the goal of this study was to develop and characterize a novel pig model of coronary microembolization using autologous thrombus injection (CMET). Twenty-three pigs underwent myocardial infarction through percutaneous balloon occlusion of the left anterior descending artery (LAD). Each animal was enrolled in one of two groups: (1) the CMET group, in which the LAD occlusion was followed by delivery of autologous clotted blood in the LAD (distal to the balloon occlusion) and reperfusion; (2) the ischemic reperfusion (I/R) group, in which the LAD ischemia was followed by reperfusion. Surviving animals underwent functional and morphological characterization at 1-week post-procedure. Three sham operated animals were used as a control. CMET resulted in impaired left ventricular function compared to I/R pigs at 1 week. Three-dimensional echocardiography demonstrated reduced ejection fraction in the CMET group (CMET vs. I/R: 35.6 ± 4.2% vs. 47.6 ± 2.4%,
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.