Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38166554›Full record

SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2024

Safety and feasibility of rotational atherectomy (RA) versus conventional stenting in patients with chronic total occlusion (CTO) lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ahmed Abdelaziz, Hanaa Elsayed, Aboalmagd Hamdaalah, Karim Atta, Ahmed Mechi, Hallas Kadhim, Aya Moustafa Aboutaleb, Ahmed Elaraby, Mohamed Hatem Ellabban, Fayed Mohamed Rzk and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  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

20 authors at 12 institutions in 5 countries.

Ahmed AbdelazizMedical Research group of Egypt (MRGE), Cairo, Egypt.
Hanaa ElsayedMedical Research group of Egypt (MRGE), Cairo, Egypt. hanaa.elsayed525@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7886-7435
Aboalmagd HamdaalahDamietta Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Damietta, Egypt.
Karim AttaMedical Research group of Egypt (MRGE), Cairo, Egypt.
Ahmed MechiInternal Medicine Department, Medicine College, University of Kufa, Najaf, Iraq.
Hallas KadhimCollege of Medicine, Al Muthanna university, Samawah, Iraq.
Aya Moustafa AboutalebMedical Research group of Egypt (MRGE), Cairo, Egypt.
Ahmed ElarabyMedical Research group of Egypt (MRGE), Cairo, Egypt.
Mohamed Hatem EllabbanMedical Research group of Egypt (MRGE), Cairo, Egypt.
Fayed Mohamed RzkMedical Research group of Egypt (MRGE), Cairo, Egypt.
Mahmoud EidMedical Research group of Egypt (MRGE), Cairo, Egypt.
Hadeer Elsaeed AboElfarhMedical Research group of Egypt (MRGE), Cairo, Egypt.
Rahma AbdElfattah IbrahimMedical Research group of Egypt (MRGE), Cairo, Egypt.
Emad Addin ZawanehMedical Research group of Egypt (MRGE), Cairo, Egypt.
Mahmoud EzzatMedical Research group of Egypt (MRGE), Cairo, Egypt.
Mohamed AbdelazizMedical Research group of Egypt (MRGE), Cairo, Egypt.
Abdelrahman H HafezMedical Research group of Egypt (MRGE), Cairo, Egypt.
Shaimaa FadelMedical Research group of Egypt (MRGE), Cairo, Egypt.
Hazem S GhaithMedical Research group of Egypt (MRGE), Cairo, Egypt.
Mustafa SuppahDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 13400 E Shea Boulevard, Scottsdale, AZ, 85259, USA.
Al-Azhar University · EGDamietta University · EGScientific Research Group in Egypt · EGZagazig University · EGAl-Muthanna University · IQJordan University of Science and Technology · JOKafrelsheikh University · EGMansoura University · EGMayo Clinic in Arizona · USNational Research Mordovia State University · RUSuez Canal University · EGUniversity of Kufa · IQ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimInterventional cardiologists face challenges in managing chronic total occlusion (CTO) lesions, with conflicting results when comparing rotational atherectomy (RA) to conventional PCI. This meta-analysis aims to provide a critical evaluation of the safety and feasibility of RA in CTO lesions.

methodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid, and Cochrane central library until April 2023 were searched for relevant studies. MACE was our primary outcomes, other outcomes were all cause of death, cardiac death, MI, and TVR. Also, we reported angiographic outcomes as technical success, procedural success, and procedural complications in a random effect model. The pooled data was analyzed using odds ratio (OR) with its 95% CI using STATA 17 MP.

resultsSeven studies comprising 5494 patients with a mean follow-up of 43.1 months were included in this meta-analysis. Our pooled analysis showed that RA was comparable to PCI to decrease the incidence of MACE (OR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.74 to 1.3], p = 0.9). Moreover, there was no significant difference between RA and conventional PCI in terms of other clinical or angiographic outcomes.

conclusionOur study showed that RA had comparable clinical and angiographic outcomes as conventional PCI in CTO lesions, which offer interventional cardiologists an expanded perspective when addressing calcified lesions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023417362.

Indexed as

Atherectomy, CoronaryCoronary OcclusionPercutaneous Coronary InterventionChronic DiseaseFeasibility StudiesHumansRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeCTO lesionsNon-CTO lesionsPCIRA

Identifiers

PMID38166554
PMCPMC10763069
OpenAlexW4390496562

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.