ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
Acetylcholine Use in Modern Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contemporary Antianginal Therapy.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2026Review
- Stability of Ready-to-Use Solutions of Acetylcholine for Intracoronary Provocative Testing.JACC. Basic to translational science · 2025Article
- MINOCA: A Pathophysiological Approach of Diagnosis and Treatment-A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Coronary Spasm Testing with Acetylcholine: A Powerful Tool for a Personalized Therapy of Coronary Vasomotor Disorders.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Diagnostic Puzzles and Cause-Targeted Treatment Strategies in Myocardial Infarction with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries: An Updated Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Patients with MINOCA.Current cardiology reports · 2023Review
- Role of Intracoronary Imaging in Myocardial Infarction with Non-Obstructive Coronary Disease (MINOCA): A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Invasive Evaluation for Coronary Vasospasm.US cardiology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of acetylcholine for the diagnosis of vasospastic angina is recommended by international guidelines. However, its intracoronary use is still off-label due to the absence of safety studies. We aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature to identify adverse events related to the intracoronary administration of acetylcholine for vasoreactivity testing to fill this gap. METHODS AND
resultsWe conducted a systematic review of observational studies and randomized controlled trials dealing with the intracoronary administration of acetylcholine. Articles were searched in MEDLINE (PubMed) using the MeSH strategy. Three independent reviewers determined whether the studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 434 articles were selected. Data concerning clinical characteristics, study population, acetylcholine dosage, and adverse effects were retrieved from the articles. Overall, 71,566 patients were included, of which only 382 (0.5%) developed one adverse event, and there were no fatal events reported (0%).
conclusionsIntracoronary administration of acetylcholine in the setting of coronary spasm provocation testing is safe and plays a central role in the evaluation of coronary vasomotion disorders, making it worthy of becoming a part of clinical practice in all cardiac catheterization laboratories.
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.