Search

Background: There is no clear evidence for the target value of blood pressure control after Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Therefore, our study was designed to explore the relationship between blood pressure after PCI and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) during 3-year follow-up.Methods: This study is a prospective study. We included the patients who were diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome and underwent PCI stent implantation operation. The study initially collected information of 552 patients. The start and end times of the study are from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2020. The independent variables of this study are the average systolic blood pressure and the average diastolic blood pressure after PCI. The dependent variable is the occurrence of MACE events in patients within 3 years after PCI. MACE is defined as acute myocardial infarction, recurring chest pain, heart failure, stroke, revascularization and cardiac death.Results: A total of 514 subjects met the inclusion criteria. The average age of the study subjects is 61.92 ± 9.49 years old, of which 67.12% are male. 94 subjects had a MACE event within 3 years, and the occurrence rate was 18.29%. There is no significant non-linear or linear relationship between diastolic blood pressure and MACE events. There is a curvilinear relationship between the average systolic blood pressure of patients after PCI and MACE events within 3 years and the inflection point is 121. On the left side of the inflection point, the effect size and 95% CI are 1.09 and 1.01-1.18, respectively (P = 0.029). The impact size and 95% CI at the right inflection point were 1.00 and 0.98-1.02(P = 0.604), respectively.Conclusion: There is a curvilinear relationship between systolic blood pressure and prognosis of patients after PCI. Under the premise of ensuring the safety of patients, maintaining lower blood pressure after surgery is beneficial to improve the prognosis of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

None of the authors responded to any correspondence from the editor/publisher about this retraction. B Retraction Note: BMC Cardiovascular Disorders (2021) 21:623 b https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-021-02435-2 The Editor has retracted this article at the corresponding author's request because after the publication of the article, the authors have found that the conclusion of this article cannot be validated by a larger sample-size study from the same cohort. The online version of the original article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-021-02435-2. [Extracted from the article]