ArticleCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2009
Current trends in coronary revascularization.
Article in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2009. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a simple risk score to predict 30-day readmission after percutaneous coronary intervention in a cohort of medicare patients.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2017Article
- Trends in incidence, management, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock complicating ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the United States.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2014Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The options for coronary revascularization broadened in recent years with the introduction of bare-metal stents in the 1990s and drug-eluting stents in 2003. Since then, the rates of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have increased whereas the use of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has decreased. Although historically there have been disparities in the use of revascularization procedures in women, the elderly, and nonwhite patients, there is some evidence to suggest these gaps have narrowed in recent years. In any given clinical circumstance, there is ongoing debate as to whether PCI or CABG is the more appropriate revascularization method depending on coronary anatomy, ventricular function, and associated conditions. Also, trends in coronary revascularization are potentially influenced by emerging clinical evidence and new technologies, national guidelines and appropriateness criteria, procedure reimbursement, and changes in the population being treated. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the trend in increased use of PCI versus CABG will continue.
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.