ArticleJournal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives2024
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Coronary Artery Ectasia: A Retrospective Single-center Study.
Article in Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This retrospective single-center study aimed to compare the outcomes of ad-hoc versus planned percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with coronary ectasia. We investigated baseline characteristics, primary and secondary outcomes, and predictors of mortality in a cohort of patients who underwent PCI procedures. Methods: Data from 3,179 patients (ad-hoc PCI, n = 1,286; planned PCI, n = 1,893) with coronary ectasia were analyzed. Baseline characteristics, including age, gender, comorbidities, and lesion characteristics, were compared between the two groups. Primary outcomes included technical success and stent deployment success, while secondary outcomes encompassed major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, recurrent angina, and target lesion revascularization. Logistic regression was utilized to identify predictors of mortality. Results: The ad-hoc PCI group exhibited a higher prevalence of comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, smoking history, and multi-vessel disease (all p < 0.05). While technical success and stent deployment success rates were lower in the ad-hoc PCI group (p < 0.05), patients undergoing planned PCI demonstrated significantly lower rates of MACE, all-cause mortality, recurrent angina, and target lesion revascularization (all p < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis identified older age, male gender, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, smoking history, and multi-vessel disease as independent predictors of mortality (all p < 0.05). Importantly, coronary ectasia emerged as an additional predictor of mortality (p = 0.002). Conclusion: Our study indicates that planned PCI is associated with improved procedural outcomes and lower rates of mortality and adverse events compared to ad-hoc PCI in patients with coronary ectasia.
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.