Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36529503›Full record

ArticleJournal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis2023

Comparison of Outcomes of Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention between Complex and High-Risk Intervention in Indicated Patients (CHIP) versus Non-CHIP.

Yudai Fujimoto, Kenichi Sakakura, Hiroyuki Jinnouchi, Yousuke Taniguchi, Takunori Tsukui, Yusuke Watanabe, Kei Yamamoto, Masaru Seguchi, Hiroshi Wada, Hideo Fujita

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Application of Drug-Coated Balloons in Complex High Risk and Indicated Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yudai FujimotoDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Kenichi SakakuraDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Hiroyuki JinnouchiDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Yousuke TaniguchiDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Takunori TsukuiDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Yusuke WatanabeDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Kei YamamotoDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Masaru SeguchiDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Hiroshi WadaDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Hideo FujitaDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan.
Jichi Medical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsComplex and high-risk intervention in indicated patients (CHIP) is an emerging concept in the contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). CHIP is known to consist three factors, namely, (1) patient factors, (2) complicated heart disease, and (3) complex PCI. However, it remains unclear whether additional CHIP factors further increase the incidence of complications in complex PCI. Thus, in this study, we aim to compare the incidence of complications among definite CHIP, possible CHIP, and non-CHIP in terms of complex PCI and to further investigate the association between CHIP and complications.

methodsThe primary aim of this study was to determine the major complications in PCI. We included 989 PCI lesions and divided those into definite CHIP (n=140), possible CHIP (n=397), and the non-CHIP groups (n=452).

resultsThe incidence of major complications was noted to be the highest in the definite CHIP, followed by the possible CHIP, and lowest in the non-CHIP (p=0.001). The multivariate logistic regression analysis using a generalized estimating equation revealed definite CHIP (versus non-CHIP: odds ratio (OR) 2.099, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.062-4.150, p=0.033) was significantly associated with major complications after controlling for confounding factors. Another multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed immunosuppressive drugs (OR 3.040, 95% CI 1.251-7.386, p=0.014), unstable hemodynamics (OR 5.753, 95% CI 1.217-27.201, p=0.027), and frailty (OR 2.039, 95% CI 1.108-3.751, p=0.022) were significantly associated with major complications among CHIP factors.

conclusionsThe incidence of major complications in complex PCI was determined to be the highest in the definite CHIP, followed by the possible CHIP and lowest in the non-CHIP. Thus, more attention should be given to the three components of CHIP to prevent major complications in complex PCI.

Indexed as

Coronary OcclusionHeart DiseasesPercutaneous Coronary InterventionHumansRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeCHIPChronic total occlusionComplicationsPercutaneous coronary intervention

Identifiers

PMID36529503
PMCPMC10499455
OpenAlexW4311933189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.