ArticleJournal of cardiovascular translational research2024
Changes in Cardiac Electrical Biomarker in Response to Coronary Arterial Occlusion: An Experimental Observation.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular translational research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac electrical biomarker (CEB), an indicator of ischaemia-induced change in myocyte polarity, has been proposed for diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome. However, effect of coronary occlusion on CEB has not been demonstrated. CEB was acquired before (CEB0), during maximal adenosine hyperaemia (CEBhyp), balloon inflations (CEBmax) and 1 (CEB1h), 2 (CEB2h) and 3 (CEB3h) h after percutaneous coronary intervention along with pre- and post-procedural troponin-I. CEB of subjects with non-cardiac chest pain without risk factors was used as controls (CEBc). "Late recovery" (LR) of CEB was defined as CEB3h > median-CEB0. CEB was recorded in 75 patients undergoing stenting (group 1) including 8 with FFR < 0.8 (group 1a), 25 with FFR ≥ 0.8 (group 2) and 49 controls. In group 1, CEB0 (median, IQR) was higher than CEBc (48.0; 29.5-88.3 vs 30.0; 17.0-44.0; p < 0.001). CEBmax (185; 105.0-331.0) was higher than CEB0 (p < 0.0001). CEB1h (78.0; 31.5-143.8; p < 0.0001) and CEB2h (63.0; 31.5-114.3; p = 0.039) were higher than CEB0 while CEB3h (54.0; 24.3-94.8, p = 0.152) was similar. LR occurred in 50.7% patients. CEBmax predicted LR (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.01, p < 0.001) (AUC 0.759, p < 0.001). CEB0 in group 1a and group 2 were similar (p = 0.524). CEBhyp was higher than CEB0 in group 1a (126.0, 109.5-266.0 vs 47.5, 20.5-73.5; p = 0.016) and group 2 (44.0, 27.8-104.8 vs 39.0, 24.0-90.3; p = 0.014). CEBhyp was higher in group 1a than 2 (p = 0.039). CEBhyp (AUC 0.75, p = 0.017) accurately predicted FFR < 0.8. Coronary arterial occlusion increases CEB that retains a "memory" of the ischaemic event. CEBhyp was higher only when FFR was ischaemic and accurately identified FFR < 0.8.
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.