ReviewHeart failure reviews2015
Surgical ventricular restoration: where do we go from here?
Review in Heart failure reviews, 2015. 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.
- The Effect of 30% or More Volume Reduction Achieved by Surgical Ventricular Reconstruction for Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: A Systematic Review.Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team · 2025Article
- Surgical treatment of left ventricular aneurysm in patients with prior myocardial infarction in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease (MINOCA): a cohort study.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2023Article
- Outcomes of continuous flow left ventricular assist device after surgical left ventricular restoration.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The surgical treatment for ischemic heart failure (STICH) trial concluded that the addition of surgical ventricular restoration (SVR) to coronary bypass grafting did not lead to improved survival in patients with dilated ischemic cardiomyopathy. Observational studies at multiple centers over the last 15 years have shown consistent improvement in global ventricular function and approximately 70 % long-term survival. The causes of this discrepancy are reviewed here and likely relate to how the STICH trial was conducted. Recent subset analyses from the STICH investigators have provided some additional data relating ventricular volumes to outcomes. However, including patients with unsuitable entry criteria and operations confounds the data. We recommend an analysis of the STICH data based on the trial's initial design in order to determine if there are patients who may benefit by SVR.
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.