ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)2019
Predictors and prognosis of no-reflow during primary percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and prognostic implications of the no-reflux phenomenon in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention at a university center in a middle-income country.Archivos de cardiologia de Mexico · 2024Article
- RDW as A Predictor for No-Reflow Phenomenon in DM Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Comparison of angiographic results and clinical outcomes of no-reflow after stenting in left anterior descending (LAD) versus non-LAD culprit STEMI.SAGE open medicine · 2022Article
- No-Reflow after PPCI-A Predictor of Short-Term Outcomes in STEMI Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- New CHABMC cardiovascular disorders · 2020Observational
- Myocardial preservation during primary percutaneous intervention: It's time to rethink?Indian heart journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The no-reflow phenomenon occurs in a considerable number of patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary reperfusion therapy. Our study aimed to identify clinical, angiographic, and procedural variables that predict this phenomenon in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), as well as determine the impact of no-reflow on in-hospital mortality. Prospective observational data from 410 patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI were obtained. In this study, diabetes mellitus, late presentation, higher Killip class at admission, anterior wall infarction, proximal site of occlusion, presence of high-grade thrombus, and left ventricular systolic dysfunction at admission were significantly associated with suboptimal coronary flow. Diabetes mellitus, a high thrombus burden, prolonged total ischemic time, and low left ventricular ejection fraction on admission were independent predictors of no-reflow. No-reflow during PPCI was associated with in-hospital mortality more than twice that for normal flow.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.