ArticleHeart and vessels2022
Safety evaluation of high-risk myocardial micro-biopsy in a swine model.
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, 1 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of the study was to investigate the safety profile of high-risk micro-endomyocardial biopsy (micro-EMB) compared to conventional EMB in a large animal model. Twenty pigs were subjected to a maximum of 30 consecutive biopsies, including sampling from the free ventricular wall, with either micro-EMB (n = 10) or conventional EMB (n = 10). There were no major complications in the micro-EMB group (0/10), compared to six major complications in the EMB group (6/10; p = 0.003). Survival analysis further highlighted these differences (p = 0.004). There were significantly higher volumes of pericardial effusion in the EMB group (p = 0.01). The study shows a safety advantage of micro-EMB compared to standard EMB in the experimental high-risk circumstances investigated in this animal study. These results indicate enhanced possibilities to collect samples from sensitive areas by using the micro-EMB technique instead of standard EMB.
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.