ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Nitrates administered by spray versus tablet: comparison of coronary vasodilation on CT angiography.
Article in European radiology, 2021. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacokinetics and safety of highly variable nitroglycerin lingual spray (NLS) versus US-licensed nitroglycerin lingual spray reference product (NitrolingualFrontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Impact of nitroglycerin on machine-learning fractional flow reserve in coronary computed tomography (CT)-angiography.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the coronary vasodilation effects of spray with those induced by tablet administration in coronary CT angiography (CCTA).
methodsA total of 2024 patients who underwent CCTA were identified for this retrospective study, including 828 patients with spray (spray group) and 1169 with tablets (tablet group). Of these, 93 patients underwent CCTA at least twice using both spray and tablets. The number of measurable segments and diameters of all 18 segments was measured. The number of measurable segments was compared between groups.
resultsNo statistically significant differences were evident between these two groups in terms of clinical characteristics. All coronary segments except the ramus intermedius (RI) and left posterior descending artery (L-PDA) were significantly larger in the spray group than in the tablet group (all p < 0.001). In peripheral and branch vessels, as well as in central and main coronary arteries, the diameters were significantly larger in the spray group than in the tablet group (all p < 0.001). Although not always statistically significant, all coronary segments tended to be more measurable on CCTA with spray than with tablet. In the subgroup that underwent CCTA twice using both spray and tablets, all coronary segments except the RI, obtuse marginal artery 2 (OM2), and L-PDA were significantly larger in the spray group than in the tablet group (all p < 0.05).
conclusionLingual isosorbide dinitrate (ISDN) spray was more efficacious than sublingual nitroglycerin (NTG) tablets in coronary vasodilation for CCTA. Therefore, lingual ISDN spray should be preferred over sublingual NTG tablets for CCTA. KEY POINTS: • Lingual ISDN spray was more efficacious than sublingual NTG tablet for coronary vasodilation in coronary CT angiography, even in elderly patients. • The diameters of all coronary segments except RI and L-PDA were significantly larger, and there were significantly more coronary segments greater than 1.5 mm, except RI and L-PDA, in the spray group than in the tablet group in the whole study group. • Even in peripheral and branch vessels, the diameters of coronary arteries were significantly larger in the spray group than in the tablet group, and they were also larger in elderly patients.
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.