ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2022
Safety and efficacy of immediate heparin reversal with protamine after complex percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Protamine Utilization and Clinical Outcomes for Coronary Artery Perforation in Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Procedures.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- Antithrombotic therapy in complex percutaneous coronary intervention.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Review
- Clinical and subclinical acute brain injury caused by invasive cardiovascular procedures.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCompared to simple percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), complex PCI is associated with higher bleeding and thrombotic risk. No previous study has evaluated the use of protamine after PCI with contemporary technologies. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of manual compression with and without protamine after transfemoral complex PCI.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 160 patients (protamine group, n = 92; non-protamine group, n = 68) who underwent complex PCI via the femoral artery. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke/systemic embolism, bleeding requiring blood transfusion, and vascular access complications.
resultsThe primary outcome was significantly lower in the protamine group than in the non-protamine group (4.3% vs. 17.6%; p = 0.006). This was driven mainly by the lower incidences of hematoma in the protamine group (3.3% vs. 13.2%, p = 0.020). Furthermore, the protamine group had a significantly shorter hospital stay than the non-protamine group (4.8 ± 3.7 days vs. 8.4 ± 8.3 days, p = 0.001). While > 90% of the patients had acute coronary syndrome, there were no incidences of myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis in either group.
conclusionsAmong patients who underwent complex PCI via transfemoral access, immediate protamine administration was associated with a significantly lower rate of vascular access complications, especially hematoma, and shorter hospital stay than no protamine administration.
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.