ReviewThe Canadian journal of cardiology2007
Timing of bypass surgery in stable patients after acute myocardial infarction.
Review in The Canadian journal of cardiology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biologics and their delivery systems: Trends in myocardial infarction.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2021Review
- Waiting time for cancer treatment and mental health among patients with newly diagnosed esophageal or gastric cancer: a nationwide cohort study.BMC cancer · 2017Article
- Preoperative risk factors in 10 418 patients with prior myocardial infarction and 5241 patients with prior unstable angina undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery.British journal of anaesthesia · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the optimal timing for bypass surgery in stable patients after acute myocardial infarction (MI).
backgroundCoronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) is a proven treatment for coronary artery disease. Because of the hypothesized risk of hemorrhagic transformation, it had become common practice to wait four to six weeks after MI. Recently, improvements in surgical and perioperative management, as well as an increase in pre-CABG in-hospital waiting times and excess burden on health care resources, have pushed surgeons to operate earlier. The optimal timing for a stable patient to undergo CABG after MI is unclear, because there have been no randomized trials to answer this question.
methodsThe published literature comparing early versus late surgical revascularization procedures in stable post-MI patients was reviewed.
resultsNo randomized, prospective trials were found; however, several retrospective studies were identified. Most series examining Q wave MIs showed that mortality is higher in the early stages post-MI and progressively decreases with time post-MI. When studies examined non-Q wave MIs separately, there appeared to be less of a mortality difference between early and late surgical revascularization. There was a large disparity between the definitions of early surgery post-MI among the studies, some as early as 6 h and others up to eight days. Factors that increased mortality include abnormal left ventricular function and urgency of surgery, and some studies found risk models helpful to define increased risk after infarction. The possible increased risk of early surgery may be balanced against the potential for improved remodelling, improved quality of life and decreased hospital stay costs.
conclusionsThere is a need for a randomized, prospective trial examining the optimal timing for CABG in stable post-MI patients.
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.