ArticlePloS one2020
Association of the long fluoroscopy time with factors in contemporary primary percutaneous coronary interventions.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shedding light on radiation exposure: Emergency vs. elective catheterization procedures in a prospective cohort study.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2025Article
- Angiographic Coronary Calcification: A Simple Predictor of Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2023Article
- Association between the Angle of the Left Subclavian Artery and Procedural Time for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2022Article
- Factors associated with difficulty in crossing the culprit lesion of acute myocardial infarction.Scientific reports · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince the long fluoroscopy time in primary PCI for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) could be an indicator of delayed reperfusion, it should be important to recognize which types of lesions require longer fluoroscopy-time in primary PCI. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association of the long fluoroscopy-time with clinical factors in primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).
methodsA total of 539 patients who underwent primary PCI were divided into the conventional fluoroscopy-time group (Q1-Q4: n = 434) and the long fluoroscopy-time group (Q5: n = 105) according to the quintile of the total fluoroscopy time in primary PCI. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to find associations between clinical variables and the long fluoroscopy-time.
resultsIn univariate logistic regression analysis, prevalence of diabetes mellitus, hemodialysis, and previous CABG were significantly associated with the long fluoroscopy-time. In addition, complex lesion characteristics such as lesion length, lesion angle, tortuosity, and calcification were associated with the long fluoroscopy-time. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, lesion length [per 10 mm incremental: odds ratio (OR) 1.751, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.397-2.195, P<0.001], moderate-excessive tortuosity (vs. mild tortuosity: OR 4.006, 95% CI 1.498-10.715, P = 0.006), and moderate to severe calcification (vs. none-mild calcification: OR 1.865, 95% CI 1.107-3.140, P = 0.019) were significantly associated with the long fluoroscopy-time.
conclusionsIn primary PCI for STEMI, diffuse long lesion, tortuosity, and moderate-severe calcification were associated with the long fluoroscopy-time. These complex features require special attention to reduce reperfusion time in primary 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.