ArticleHeart and vessels2022
Clinical outcomes for intracoronary imaging strategies at different medical facilities in Japanese patients with coronary artery disease: the SAKURA imaging PCI Registry.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2022. 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.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The relationships between intracoronary imaging modalities and outcomes among Japanese patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) based on the type of medical facility providing outpatient care remain unclear. In this multicenter prospective study (SAKURA PCI Registry), we aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients with CAD who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between April 2015 and December 2018. In this registry, we investigated differences in patient characteristics, intracoronary imaging modalities, and clinical outcomes between two types of medical facilities. Of the 414 patients enrolled in this registry, 196 were treated at two university hospitals, and 218 were treated at five community hospitals (median follow-up 11.0 months). The primary endpoint was clinically relevant events (CREs), including a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis, stroke, and major bleeding. Patients treated at university hospitals had higher rates of diabetes (50% vs. 38%, p = 0.015) and malignant tumors (12% vs. 6%, p = 0.015) and more frequent use of multiple intracoronary imaging modalities than patients treated at community hospitals (21% vs. 0.5%, p < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier incidence of CREs at 1 year was comparable between university hospitals and community hospitals (8.8% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.527, log-rank test). Despite the relatively higher risk among patients in university hospitals with frequent use of multi-intracoronary imaging modalities, adverse clinical events appeared to be comparable between patients with CAD treated at university and community hospitals in Japan.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34363517What 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.