ArticleBMJ open2013
A combination of anatomical and functional evaluations improves the prediction of cardiac event in patients with coronary artery bypass.
Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Significance of myocardial flow reserve after revascularization.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2023Article
- Clinical Application of Myocardial Perfusion SPECT in Patients with Suspected or Known Coronary Artery Disease. What Role in the Multimodality Imaging Era?Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Diagnostic and Management Strategies in Patients with Late Recurrent Angina after Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.Current cardiology reports · 2022Review
- Non-invasive Ischaemia Testing in Patients With Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: Technical Challenges, Limitations, and Future Directions.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
- A New Approach in Risk Stratification by Coronary CT Angiography.Scientifica · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo study the usefulness of combined risk stratification of coronary CT angiography (CTA) and myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) in patients with previous coronary-artery-bypass grafting (CABG).
designA retrospective, observational, single centre study. SETTING AND PATIENTS: 204 patients (84.3% men, mean age 68.7±7.6) undergoing CTA and MPI.
main outcome measuresCTA defined unprotected coronary territories (UCT; 0, 1, 2 or 3) by evaluating the number of significant stenoses which were defined as the left main trunk ≥50% diameter stenosis, other native vessel stenosis ≥70% or graft stenosis ≥70%. Using a cut-off value with receiver-operating characteristics analysis, all patients were divided into four groups: group A (UCT=0, summed stress score (SSS)<4), group B (UCT≥1, SSS<4), group C (UCT=0, SSS≥4) and group D (UCT≥1, SSS≥4).
resultsCardiac events, as a composite end point including cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring revascularisation and heart-failure hospitalisation, were observed in 27 patients for a median follow-up of 27.5 months. The annual event rates were 1.1%, 2%, 5.7% and 12.9% of patients in groups A, B, C and D, respectively (log rank p value <0.0001). Adding UCT or SSS to a model with significant clinical factors including left ventricular ejection fraction, time since CABG and Euro SCORE II improved the prediction of events, while adding UCT and SSS to the model improved it greatly with increasing C-index, net reclassification improvement and integrated discrimination improvement.
conclusionsThe combination of anatomical and functional evaluations non-invasively enhances the predictive accuracy of cardiac events in patients with CABG.
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.