SynthesisCardiology journal2021
The impact of dissection and re-entry versus wire escalation techniques on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with chronic total occlusion lesions following percutaneous coronary intervention: An updated meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Cardiology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of successful versus failed percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with chronic total occlusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cardiology journal · 2024Pooled it
- Long-Term Follow-up After Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Chronic Total Occlusions.Clinical cardiology · 2026Observational
- A Novel Parallel Wire-based Antegrade Dissection Re-entry Technique for Failed Retrograde Attempt of Coronary Chronic Total Occlusions with Risk Nomogram Analysis.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2024Article
- Device-based antegrade dissection re-entry versus parallel wire techniques for the percutaneous revascularization of coronary chronic total occlusions.Cardiology journal · 2023Article
- Crossing Peripheral Chronic Total Occlusions: More Tolls and More Questions.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
- Going through or around the occlusion? All roads lead to Rome.Cardiology journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of dissection and re-entry (DR) vs. wire escalation (WE) techniques on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with chronic total occlusion (CTO) lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
methodsStudies were searched in electronic databases from inception to September, 2019. Results were pooled using random effects model and fixed effects model and are presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsPooled analyses revealed that patients with DR techniques had overall higher complexity CTO lesions than patients with WE techniques and required a greater number of stents and a greater mean stent length. The "extensive" DR techniques may have a higher incidence of target vessel revascularization (TVR) (RR = 2.30, 95% CI: 1.77-2.98), in-stent restenosis (RR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.30-2.23), in-stent reocclusion (RR = 1.86, 95% CI: 1.03-3.3) and death/myocardial infarction/TVR (RR = 2.10, 95% CI: 1.71-2.58), when compared with WE techniques, during the long-term follow-up. However, "limited" DR techniques result in more promising outcomes, and are comparable to conventional WE techniques.
conclusionsDissection and re-entry techniques were associated with increased risk of long-term negative clinical events, especially "extensive" DR techniques. However, "limited" DR techniques resulted in good long-term outcomes, comparable to WE techniques.
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.