ArticleScientific reports2023
Long-term outcomes of periprocedural coronary dissection and perforation for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in a Japanese multicenter registry.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Impact of Angiographic Complications Occurring During Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Optical coherence tomography guided additional Noevas bioresorbable vascular scaffold in the treatment of iatrogenic coronary artery dissection: a case report.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of the repeated 3-time-balloon-inflation method in reducing coronary stent edge dissection.Heart and vessels · 2025Article
- Complicated coronary artery dissection in which a guidewire was pushed out from the true lumen to the false lumen behind calcified plaque.Journal of cardiology cases · 2025Article
- Electrospun bioresorbable polymer membranes for coronary artery stents.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Long-term outcomes of iatrogenic coronary dissection and perforation in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains under-investigated. We analyzed 8,721 consecutive patients discharged after PCI between 2008 and 2019 from Keio Cardiovascular (KiCS) PCI multicenter prospective registry in the Tokyo metropolitan area. Significant coronary dissection was defined as persistent contrast medium extravasation or spiral or persistent filling defects with complete distal and impaired flow. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, bleeding, stroke requiring admission, and coronary artery bypass grafting two years after discharge. We used a multivariable Cox hazard regression model to assess the effects of these complications. Among the patients, 68 (0.78%) had significant coronary dissections, and 61 (0.70%) had coronary perforations at the index PCI. Patients with significant coronary dissection had higher rates of the primary endpoint and heart failure than those without (25.0% versus 14.3%, P = 0.02; 10.3% versus 4.2%, P = 0.03); there were no significant differences in the primary outcomes between the patients with and without coronary perforation (i.e., primary outcome: 8.2% versus 14.5%, P = 0.23) at the two-year follow-up. After adjustments, patients with coronary dissection had a significantly higher rate of the primary endpoint than those without (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02-2.84; P = 0.04), but there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between the patients with and without coronary perforation (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.21-1.23; P = 0.13). For patients undergoing PCI, significant coronary dissection was associated with poor long-term outcomes, including heart failure readmission.
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.