ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2011
Utilizing risk scores in determining the optimal revascularization strategy for complex coronary artery disease.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2011. 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multidisciplinary Heart Team Approach for Complex Coronary Artery Disease: Single Center Clinical Presentation.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2020Article
- Global Risk Score and Clinical SYNTAX Score as Predictors of Clinical Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Unprotected Left Main Percutaneous Catheter Intervention.Cardiology research · 2017Article
- Combination of angiographic and clinical characteristics for the prediction of clinical outcomes in elderly patients undergoing multivessel PCI.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of multivessel and/or left main stem disease have been shown to be potentially legitimate revascularization alternatives in appropriately selected patients. Risk stratification is an important component in guiding patients to identify the most appropriate revascularization modality (PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) in conjunction with the Heart Team. The aim of this paper is to give the clinician a concise overview of the important established and evolving contemporary risk models in aiding this decision-making process. Risk models, based on clinical and anatomical variables alone, the novel concept of functional anatomical risk scores, and risk models combining aspects from both clinical and anatomical scores, are all discussed. The emerging concepts of the patient-empowered risk/benefit tradeoff between PCI and CABG to help personalize the choice of revascularization modality are also explored.
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.