ArticleJournal of human hypertension2002
Are we negating the benefits of CABG by forgetting secondary prevention?
Article in Journal of human hypertension, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do practice gaps exist in evidence-based medication prescription at hospital discharge in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery & coronary angioplasty?The Indian journal of medical research · 2017Article
- Secondary revascularization after CABG surgery.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2012Review
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
unlabelledThe objective of the study was to examine medically managed secondary prevention at one year after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). In all, 214 consecutive patients undergoing isolated elective CABG seen four weeks preoperatively and one year post-operatively. Preoperative systolic blood pressure averaged 135+/-20 mmHg, which increased to 148+/-25 mmHg (P<0.0001) as did diastolic pressure (81+/-12 to 87+/-13 mmHg; P<0.0001). Anginal symptoms were reported by 45.1% (P<0.0001) although median severity scored lower (4.0 [3.0-5.4] vs 0 [0-2.0]; P<0.0001). Breathlessness decreased from 93% to 64% (P<0.0001) and was scored less severely (4.0 [2.0-5.0] vs 2.0 [0-4.0]; P<0.0001. In all, 88% with postoperative angina reported dyspnoea against 44% of those without (P<0.0001). Calcium antagonist use was more common in patients with angina (27.2% vs 5.1%; P<0.0001), but not nitrates (P=0.8695), diuretics (P=0.4218), digoxin (P=0.2565), beta-blockers (P=0.0820), or ACE inhibitors (P=0.7256). Preoperatively 166 patients (80.2%) took aspirin vs 69.2% afterwards (P=0.0131). Twelve patients (6.5%) received warfarin after operation vs none preoperatively. Two took digoxin (0.97%) preoperatively and 14 (7.7%) postoperatively (P=0.001) for chronic atrial fibrillation. One of these took warfarin. Long-acting nitrate use fell from 63.4% to 15.8% (P <0.0001). Short-acting nitrate use fell similarly (P<0.0001). Preoperatively 37 patients (17.9%) took ACE inhibitors vs 44 postoperatively (24.2%); 39 had not received them before. Preoperatively 48 (23.2%) took diuretics vs 30 (16.5%) postoperatively (P=0.127); 24 had not previously taken diuretics. More patients took HMGCoA inhibitors postoperatively (P=0.0068) and total cholesterol was significantly reduced with a concomitant increase in HDL fraction. Smoking habit was virtually unchanged from 17.8% to 15.1% (P=0.5023). IN
conclusionangina was common. Apart from statin prescribing, postoperative secondary prevention measures were poorly applied, less widespread and less effective than preoperatively. The implications are disturbing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12420192What 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.