SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2021
Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Saphenous Vein Grafts With and Without Embolic Protection Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Saphenous Vein Graft Failure: Current Challenges and a Review of the Contemporary Percutaneous Options for Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to review studies comparing outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in saphenous vein grafts (SVG) with and without embolic protection devices (EPD).
methodsDatabases including PubMed Central, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and Scopus were searched from January 1964 to April 2021. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Newcastle Ottawa scale to assess the quality of published studies based on study design. From the results, we carried out a meta-analysis with a random-effects model and reported pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI.
resultsIn total, 11 studies were analyzed that included 79,009 total participants. EPD use had significantly lower odds of mortality (pooled OR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.5-0.94). There was no significant difference in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (pooled OR = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.67-1.03), target vessel revascularization (pooled OR = 1; 95% CI: 0.95-1.05), periprocedural (pooled OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 0.65-1.9) and late myocardial infarction (MI) (pooled OR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.55-1.14) with or without EPD for PCI in SVG patients.
conclusionAlthough not statistically beneficial for MACE, target vessel revascularization, periprocedural, and late MI, EPD use does appear to significantly reduce mortality for the patients undergoing PCI in SVG. Clinicians might consider using EPD for such patients to reduce the burden of post-procedural morbidity and mortality.
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.