ReviewHerz2010
[Coronary artery bypass surgery for the treatment of acute coronary syndromes].
Review in Herz, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
According to the current guidelines coronary revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is primarily performed by percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). However, in several scenarios like complex coronary pathologies, unsuccessful PCI, complicated PCI or cardiogenic shock, surgical coronary revascularization might be indicated. Then, timing of the operation is based on clinical symptoms, coronary artery pathology, and the type of underlying ACS (Figure 1). Surgical strategies among others include the use of beating-heart strategies. Furthermore, a modern perioperative management allows improved results in a more aged and comorbid patient population as well as in patients presenting with hemodynamic instability. In cardiogenic shock, a variety of different cardiopulmonary assist devices are available today including intra-aortic balloon pump, several ventricular assist devices, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (Figure 2).In the literature, results of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in ACS patients vary significantly because of different patient populations, different timing of the operation, and different hemodynamic status. Thus, comparison of surgical concepts is almost impossible. Until today, randomized surgical trials for ACS patients are pending. However, hospital survival of > 95% is reported even in emergency CABG patients during the last 5 years (Table 1). For all surgical candidates a close and direct communication between interventionalist and cardiac surgeon is mandatory to early identify the best treatment strategy and to achieve best possible revascularization results.
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.