ReviewCureus2024
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Antegrade and Retrograde Techniques for Chronic Total Occlusion Revascularizations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic total occlusions (CTOs) present significant challenges in interventional cardiology. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of retrograde versus antegrade techniques in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases were searched through June 20, 2024. Studies comparing outcomes between antegrade and retrograde methods for CTO-PCI were included. Primary outcomes were procedural and technical success. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), all-cause mortality, and myocardial infarction. The final analysis included seventeen studies. The antegrade approach showed a 5% higher likelihood of technical success (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02-1.09) and 14% higher odds of procedural success (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.10-1.19) compared to the retrograde approach. The antegrade group also demonstrated lower risks of MACE, all-cause mortality, and myocardial infarction (RR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.26-0.63). This meta-analysis suggests that the antegrade approach in CTO-PCI is associated with higher success rates and lower risks of adverse outcomes compared to the retrograde approach. However, the retrograde technique remains crucial for complex lesions and patients with multiple comorbidities.
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.