ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Comparison of patients undergoing protected high risk percutaneous coronary intervention using either intravascular lithotripsy or rotational atherectomy.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient selection for complex, high-risk indicated percutaneous coronary intervention procedures: an overview.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Contemporary evidence in protected percutaneous coronary intervention: a case-based review.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Intravascular lithotripsy versus rotational atherectomy for coronary atherosclerosis calcification: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Treating heavily calcified vessels is a challenging task in patients with an impaired left ventricular ejection fraction. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) is increasingly used in patients in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HRPCI). Methods: In this retrospective registry, we investigated 25 patients undergoing a protected HRPCI receiving either intravascular lithotripsy (IVL + pMCS; Results: Patients in the IVL + pMCS group had a significantly higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) at the end of the procedure ( Conclusions: In our cohort patients in the IVL + pMCS group were hemodynamically more stable which led to a lower rate of catecholamine usage. pMCS as a bailout strategy was associated with in-hospital death and the occurrence of the slow reflow phenomenon with all-cause mortality during follow-up.
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.