ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2021
The Comparison between Two Risk Scores as for the Prediction of Coronary Microvascular Obstruction during Primary Percutaneous Intervention.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- No Reflow in Acute Coronary Syndromes: An Old Foe or a New Frontier?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) that are suffering from subsequent coronary microvascular functional and structural obstruction (CMVO), no specific and definitive therapeutic approaches of attenuation have been proven valid in up-to-date large-scale tests, which highlights the urge to address its early recognition.
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the performance of two clinical risk scores with an objective measurement of CMVO during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with STEMI.
methodsThe Index of Microcirculatory Resistance (IMR) measurement was conducted and the baseline clinical and angiographic parameters were also recorded. The patients were divided into MO (Microvascular obstruction) or NMO (Non-microvascular obstruction) groups according to the post-procedure IMR value. The CMVO risk was evaluated for all participants by SAK and ATI predictive scores, respectively. Each system was calculated by summing the scores of all variables. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC) of two risk models were used to evaluate the discriminatory performance. An echocardiography was performed seven days after the procedure to evaluate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). A two-sided P-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsAmong the 65 eligible STEMI patients, 48 patients were allocated in the NMO group and 17 in the MO group, with a CMVO incidence of 26.15%. There was no significant difference in the AUC between both scores. The LVEF evaluated for the NMO group was higher than that of MO group.
conclusionBoth SAK and ATI scores performed well in estimating CMVO risk after primary PCI for STEMI 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.