ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2014
Association between appropriateness of coronary revascularization and quality of life in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Appropriateness of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe relationship between appropriateness score, treatment strategy and quality of life (QOL) among patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) is not known. In this prospective cohort study, we evaluated changes in generic and cardiac-specific quality of life in patients with documented SIHD, comparing patients with revascularization versus those with medical therapy alone, stratified by their appropriateness scores.
methodsConsecutive patients with SIHD undergoing elective coronary angiogram from November 1st 2008 to December 1st 2009 completed the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and EQ-5D at the time of procedure and at 1 year. The appropriateness for coronary revascularization was determined at the time of coronary angiography.
resultsOur final cohort consisted of 425 patients, 69.4% of whom underwent revascularization. In the overall cohort, 272 (64.0%) had appropriate indications for revascularization, while 57 (13.4%) had inappropriate indications and 96 (22.6%) had uncertain indications. On average, patients improved in most QOL domains, regardless of treatment strategy and appropriateness score. In patients with appropriate indications, revascularized patients had greater improvements in both generic (0.073; 95% CI 0.003-0.144; p-value 0.04) and disease-specific indices, including angina stability (14.6; 95% CI 0.85-28.3; p-value 0.04), physical limitation (9.3; 95% CI 0.71-17.8; p-value 0.03) and disease perception (12.7; 95% CI4.3-21.1; p-value 0.003) compared to medically treated patients. However, patients with uncertain and inappropriate indications also had improvements in physical limitation and disease perception with revascularization compared to medical therapy.
conclusionsPatients who had appropriate revascularization derived the greatest improvement in QOL compared with medical therapy.
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.