ArticleCardiovascular therapeutics2026
Single-Catheter Versus Conventional Two-Catheter Primary PCI in STEMI: A 1:1 Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.
Article in Cardiovascular therapeutics, 2026. 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.
- Single-Catheter Versus Conventional Two-Catheter Primary PCI in STEMI: A 1:1 Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the gold-standard reperfusion strategy for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the conventional two-catheter percutaneous coronary intervention (C-PCI) workflow requires sequential use of diagnostic and guiding catheters, causing avoidable procedural delays. Single-catheter percutaneous coronary intervention (SC-PCI) uses a single universal guiding catheter for both coronary angiography and intervention, improving intraprocedural efficiency, but comparative data remain limited.
methodsThis single-center retrospective cohort study enrolled 268 consecutive STEMI patients undergoing transradial pPCI. Using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), baseline confounders were balanced between the SC-PCI and C-PCI groups. The primary endpoint was puncture-to-balloon (P2B) time; secondary endpoints included core procedural time metrics, intraprocedural exposure, safety, and short-term outcomes. Exploratory subgroup analyses were performed to assess the consistency of treatment effect.
resultsAfter PSM, 120 well-balanced patients (60 per group) were included. SC-PCI significantly reduced P2B time (median 9.5 vs. 15.5 min, p < 0.001), along with shorter puncture-to-angiography time, cath-lab door-to-balloon time, fluoroscopy duration, and lower contrast volume (all p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed in procedural success, overall complication rates, or in-hospital mortality between groups. In exploratory subgroup analyses, the P2B benefit was consistent across subgroups, with no significant interactions (all p for interaction > 0.05).
conclusionIn this propensity-matched STEMI cohort, SC-PCI was associated with shorter P2B time and improved intraprocedural efficiency, with no significant differences in periprocedural safety outcomes, suggesting that SC-PCI may be a promising strategy to optimize STEMI interventional workflows.
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.