Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22776987›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cardiology2012

Secondary revascularization after CABG surgery.

Javier Escaned

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cardiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Javier EscanedCardiovascular Institute, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Calle del Profesor Martín Lagos s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain. escaned@secardiologia.es
Hospital Clínico San Carlos · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

CABG surgery is an effective way to improve symptoms and prognosis in patients with advanced coronary atherosclerotic disease. Despite multiple improvements in surgical technique and patient treatment, graft failure after CABG surgery occurs in a time-dependent fashion, particularly in the second decade after the intervention, in a substantial number of patients because of atherosclerotic progression and saphenous-vein graft (SVG) disease. Until 2010, repeat revascularization by either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or surgical techniques was performed in these high-risk patients in the absence of specific recommendations in clinical practice guidelines, and within a culture of inadequate communication between cardiac surgeons and interventional cardiologists. Indeed, some of the specific technologies developed to reduce procedural risk, such as embolic protection devices for SVG interventions, are largely underused. Additionally, the implementation of secondary prevention, which reduces the need for reintervention in these patients, is still suboptimal. In this Review, graft failure after CABG surgery is examined as a clinical problem from the perspective of holistic patient management. Issues such as the substrate and epidemiology of graft failure, the choice of revascularization modality, the specific problems inherent in repeat CABG surgery and PCI, and the importance of secondary prevention are discussed.

Indexed as

Angioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryCoronary Artery BypassCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary VesselsDisease ProgressionHumansMyocardial RevascularizationPrognosisRecurrenceRiskSaphenous VeinSecondary PreventionTreatment Failure

Identifiers

PMID22776987
OpenAlexW2034860327

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.