ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2021
Is myocardial bridge more frequently detected on radial access coronary angiography?
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Myocardial Bridge: Friend, Enemy, or Frenemy?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2023Article
- A Case of Symptomatic Myocardial Bridge Treated with Calcium Channel Blocker.International medical case reports journal · 2022Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the incidence of myocardial bridge (MB) has been defined in different femoral access conventional coronary angiography (FACCA) studies, the frequency of MB on radial access coronary angiography (RACA) is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the difference in the incidence of MB between patients undergoing RACA and FACCA.
methodA total of 2500 consecutive patients who underwent RACA and a total of 1455 consecutive patients who underwent FACCA were retrospectively investigated to detect the presence of MB. The incidences of the groups were calculated separately and compared. The clinical and angiographic features of the patients with MB were analyzed.
resultsMB was detected at an incidence of 10.2%, in 255/2500 patients who underwent RACA, and 1.8% in 27/1455 patients who underwent FACCA (p < 0.001). In both RACA and FACCA patients, the most involved coronary artery was the left anterior descending artery (LAD) (86.9% and 93.1%) and the mid-segment (84.9% and 88.9%) was the most affected section. Co-involvement of multiple coronary arteries by MB was 7.8% in patients who underwent RACA and 7.4% in patients who underwent FACCA. Coronary artery disease (CAD) was determined in 111 (35.7%) of the coronary arteries with MB, of which 81.9% were proximal to the MB. No significant CAD was detected in any of the vessels of 69.8% (178/255) of the patients who underwent RACA for different clinical indications.
conclusionThese data demonstrated that the incidence of myocardial bridge able to be detected on RACA was much higher than FACCA.
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.