ArticleScientific reports2025
Clinical impact of direct rotational atherectomy in patients with complex coronary artery lesions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Owing to limited data on the optimal timing of rotational atherectomy (RA), we sought to evaluate the clinical impact of the early application of the RA strategy. Consecutive patients with severe coronary artery calcification were enrolled, who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using RA between January 2010 and October 2019 at 9 tertiary centers. Direct RA was defined as the early application of RA before the balloon was expanded to a size more than or equal to 2.0 mm. The primary endpoint was the composite outcome of technical failure or severe coronary dissection (type D, E, or F) during entire procedure. Of 581 lesions, 360 (62.0%) lesions underwent direct RA. The technical success rate was higher in the direct RA group than in the indirect RA group (97.5% vs. 93.7%, p = 0.021). The primary endpoint was more frequently observed in the indirect RA group than in the direct RA group (24.4% vs. 11.9%, p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the risk of the primary endpoint was higher in the indirect RA group than in the direct RA group (odds ratio 2.512, 95% CI 1.547-4.078, p < 0.001). Early application of RA may reduce the incidences of in-hospital adverse events and procedure-related complications.
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.