Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39494408›Full record

ReviewUS cardiology2024

Management of Calcified Coronary Lesions.

Khaled Al-Shaibi, Aditya Bharadwaj, Atul Mathur, Ashish Jaikishen, Robert Riley

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in US cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Khaled Al-ShaibiCardiac Center, King Fahd Armed Forces Hospital Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Aditya BharadwajDivision of Cardiology, Loma Linda University Medical Center Loma Linda, CA.
Atul MathurDivision of Cardiology, Fortis Escorts Heart Institute New Delhi, India.
Ashish JaikishenDivision of Cardiology, Fortis Escorts Heart Institute New Delhi, India.
Robert RileyCardiology Division, Overlake Medical Center and Clinics Bellevue, WA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With an aging population, coronary calcification is increasingly encountered in modern day interventional practice. Unfortunately, it is associated with lower procedural success and higher rates of periprocedural complications, such as failure to deliver stents, perforations, dissections, and other major adverse cardiac events. Furthermore, suboptimal stent deployment in the setting of severe calcification is associated with both short-and long-term major adverse cardiac events, including stent thrombosis, MI, in-stent restenosis, and target lesion revascularization. A variety of treatment options for these lesions exist, including specialized balloons, atherectomy, and intravascular lithotripsy. While there is currently no universally accepted algorithm for choosing between these treatment strategies, several different algorithms exist, and the optimization of these treatment regimens will continue to evolve in the coming years. This review aims to provide insights on the different therapeutic modalities and an understanding of the current body of evidence.

Indexed as

atherectomyCalcificationcoronaryrevascularizationreview

Identifiers

PMID39494408
PMCPMC11526476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.