Observational studyCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2020
Association of adoption of transradial access for percutaneous coronary intervention in ST elevation myocardial infarction with door-to-balloon time.
Observational study in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radial Artery Access for Acute Coronary Syndromes: a Review of Current Evidence.Current cardiology reports · 2022Review
- Relationship of Neighborhood Deprivation and Outcomes of a Comprehensive ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Protocol.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Observational
- Association of adoption of transradial access for percutaneous coronary intervention in ST elevation myocardial infarction with door-to-balloon time.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to study adoption of transradial primary percutaneous coronary intervention (TR-PPCI) for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) ("radial first" approach) and its association with door-to-balloon time (D2BT).
backgroundTR-PPCI for STEMI is underutilized in the United States due to concerns about prolonging D2BT. Whether operators and hospitals adopting a radial first approach in STEMI incur prolonged D2BT is unknown.
methodsIn 1,272 consecutive cases of STEMI with PPCI at our hospital from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2016, we studied TR-PPCI adoption and its association with D2BT including a propensity matched analysis of similar risk TR-PPCI and trans-femoral primary PCI (TF-PPCI) patients.
resultsWith major increases in hospital-level TR-PPCI (hospital TR-PPCI rate: 2.6% in 2011 to 79.4% in 2016, p-trend<.001) and operator-level TR-PPCI (mean operator TR-PPCI rate: 2.9% in 2011 to 81.1% in 2016, p-trend = .005), median hospital level D2BT decreased from 102 min [81, 142] in 2011 to 84 min [60, 105] in 2016 (p-trend<.001). TF crossover (10.3%; n = 57) was not associated with unadjusted D2BT (TR-PPCI success 91 min [72, 112] vs. TF crossover 99 min [70, 115], p = .432) or D2BT adjusted for study year and presenting location (7.2% longer D2BT with TF crossover, 95% CI: -4.0% to +18.5%, p = .208). Among 273 propensity-matched pairs, unadjusted D2BT (TR-PPCI 98 [78, 117] min vs. TF-PPCI 101 [76, 132] min, p = .304), and D2BT adjusted for study year and presenting location (5.0% shorter D2BT with TR-PPCI, 95% CI: -12.4% to +2.4%, p = .188) were similar.
conclusionsTR-PPCI can be successfully implemented without compromising D2BT performance.
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.