ReviewCurrent heart failure reports2015
The benefits of revascularization in chronic heart failure.
Review in Current heart failure reports, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- SPECT and PET in ischemic heart failure.Heart failure reviews · 2017Review
- Evaluation of safety and efficacy of elective PCI in patients with cardiac insufficiency.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2017Article
- Evaluation of myocardial viability in old myocardial infarcted patients with CHF: delayed enhancement MRI vs. low-dose dobutamine stress speckle tracking echocardiography.American journal of translational research · 2016Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent efforts have reduced the mortality from coronary artery disease (CAD), with the consequent increase in heart failure with reduced left ventricular function, referred to as ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). As ischemic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction may be partially or completely reversible by revascularization in the presence of viable myocardium, the assessment of myocardial viability is central to the management of ICM. Decades of observational analyses have provided positive evidence for the role of revascularization in hibernating myocardium in improving survival. However, recently the Surgical Treatment for Ischaemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial has challenged this notion, highlighting the noninferiority of optimal medical therapy (OMT) over revascularization and OMT. In this review, we discuss noninvasive imaging modalities to assess myocardial viability and the impact of myocardial viability on revascularization. We critically appraise the STICH trial and suggest an algorithm for viability testing before revascularization in patients with ICM and significant LV dysfunction.
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.