ArticleCureus2025
Myocardial Blush Grades Achieved After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Their Relation to Patient Outcomes.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess myocardial blush grades (MBG) in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Pakistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. (KPK) Higher MBG has been linked to better clinical outcomes and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement after PCI.
methodsA single-center observational study was conducted at a tertiary care cardiac center in Pakistan. All STEMI patients presenting to the accident and emergency department (A&E) who met the inclusion criteria were recruited. MBG grades were documented by experienced cardiologists. Clinical outcomes, including major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and in-hospital complications, were documented. LVEF was estimated during index hospitalization and at one-month follow-up.
resultsA total of 230 patients were recruited. The median age was 58 (interquartile range [IQR] 50.3-67), 169 (73.5%) were males, 80 (34.8%) had diabetes, 137 (59.6%) had hypertension, and 30 (13%) were current smokers. MBG 0/1 was seen in 76 (33.04%) patients, and MBG 2 and 3 in 77 (33.47%) patients each. MACE occurred in 20 (8.7%) patients, and in-hospital complications occurred in 38 (16.52%) patients. Mean LVEF on arrival and after one month was 44.41±9.03 and 45.7±9.23, respectively. Stratified analysis failed to reveal any statistically significant differences between MACE and LVEF among the groups. DISCUSSION: Despite high MBG grades in over two-thirds of patients, no significant association was found between MBG and clinical outcomes or LVEF improvement. This may be due to higher ischemia times and comorbidities in our population.
conclusionMBG, previously considered a predictor of clinical outcomes and LVEF improvement, is not the sole factor. Other variables play a significant role, and patient risk factors should be considered individually.
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.