ArticleAmerican journal of cardiovascular disease2020
Percutaneous coronary intervention procedures performed at a hospital in Southern Brazil.
Article in American journal of cardiovascular disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the advantages of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to fibrinolytic therapy, it holds some potential risks such as contrast related reactions and technical problems. In addition, recent studies have shown disparities in which access is more exposed to radiation.
objectivesTo analyze the clinical profile, differences between radial and femoral approach and complications presented in patients who underwent PCI performed in a hospital in the south of Brazil.
methodsA total of 733 patients who underwent PCI in 2016 were included and retrospectively analyzed through their clinical records. The primary outcomes analyzed were procedure approach and the presence of complications.
resultsThe median age was 62.5 years; 54.8% were male; 50.8% had hypertension and 18.6% were diabetic; and mortality was seen in 2.3% of the population. Femoral approach was the most exposed to radiation, as well as the most used in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Complications were seen in 16.1% of the population and cardiovascular complication was the most frequent. Different accesses or degree of urgency showed no association with complication development. On the other hand, STEMI was related to a bigger complication burden.
conclusionThe femoral approach demonstrated more expressive radiation exposure, which can be explained by anatomic reasons. Femoral access represented a safe approach for interventionists in more urgent cases, such as STEMI. Different accesses or degree of urgency did not show an association with complications, as opposed to STEMI, revealing that this condition deserves more attention regarding its procedures and post-PCI care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32923097PMC7486521W3084993378What 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.