ArticleIndian heart journal
Do collaterals to infarct bed in STE-ACS patients undergoing emergent percutaneous coronary revascularization matter? An assessment of a prospective pool for in-hospital course.
Article in Indian heart journal. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLimited data exist on the role of coronary collaterals circulation (CCC) in patients with ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (STE-ACS). This study aimed to assess CCC and the in-hospital course of patients with CCC undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI).
methodsThe study included consecutive STE-ACS patients undergoing pPCI. Good CCC was defined as Rentrop collateral score (RCS) of 2-3. Patients with good and poor CCC were compared regarding clinical characteristics, angiographic patterns, and hospital course.
resultsIn the sample of 4683 patients, mean age was 55.6 ± 11 years, and 78.8 % were male. Good CCC was observed in 499 (10.7 %) patients. The rate of intra-procedure slow-flow/no-reflow (SF/NR) was 29.9 % vs. 20.5 % (p < 0.001), and the rate of composite adverse clinical outcomes (CACO) was 21.2 % vs. 19 % (p = 0.225) for patients with good and poor CCC, respectively. Multivariable analysis identified left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP), multi-vessel disease (MVD), and thrombus grade ≥4 as independent predictors of good CCC, with adjusted odds ratios of 0.98 [0.97-0.99], 1.69 [1.35-2.10], and 3.45 [2.64-4.52], respectively. In propensity-matched cohorts, the intra-procedure SF/NR rate was 29.9 % vs. 26.9 % (p = 0.292), and the rate of CACO was 21.2 % vs. 23.4 % (p = 0.403) for patients with good and poor CCC, respectively.
conclusionAngiographic evidence of good CCC in STE-ACS patients was limited. Good CCC was associated with a higher prevalence of MVD, high thrombus burden, and low pre-procedure LVEDP, resulting in a higher incidence of intra-procedure SF/NR. However, the CACO did not differ significantly between patients with good and poor CCC.
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.