Trial reportPloS one2015
Hypothesis of Long-Term Outcome after Coronary Revascularization in Japanese Patients Compared to Multiethnic Groups in the US.
Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lipid Management for Secondary Prevention in Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Scoping Review and Scientific Report.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2026Article
- Polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent use in Europe and Asia: Ethnic differences in demographics and clinical outcomes.PloS one · 2020Article
- Metabolic Syndrome for Cardiovascular Disease Morbidity and Mortality Among General Japanese People: A Mini Review.Vascular health and risk management · 2020Review
- Health Economic Analysis of Antiplatelet Therapy for Acute Coronary Syndromes in the Context of Five Eastern Asian Countries.Clinical drug investigation · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEthnicity has a significant impact on coronary artery disease (CAD). This study investigated the long-term outcomes of Japanese patients undergoing revascularization compared with US patients belonging to multiple ethnic groups. METHODS AND
resultsWe evaluated clinical outcomes, based on ethnicity, of patients included in the Coronary Revascularization Demonstrating Outcome (CREDO-Kyoto) and the Texas (US) Heart Institute Research Database (THIRDBase) registries. For the analysis, we included 8871 patients from the CREDO-Kyoto registry (median follow-up period [FU], 3.5 years; interquartile range [IQR], 2.6-4.3) and 6717 patients from the THIRDBase registry (FU, 5.2 years; IQR, 3.8-6.5) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery. Cox proportional hazard models were constructed to compare the adjusted long-term outcomes for each ethnic group. A total of 8871 Japanese, 5170 Caucasians, 648 African-Americans, 817 Hispanics, and 82 Asian-Americans were identified. When adjusted, Japanese patients had significantly better outcomes than US patients, classified by ethnicity (Caucasians: hazard ratio [HR], 1.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-1.79; Hispanics: HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.22-1.93; African-Americans: HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.62-2.56), except for Asian-Americans (HR, 0.84; 95% CI. 0.38-1.89) who had outcomes similar to Japanese patients.
conclusionOur findings indicate better survival outcomes in re-vascularized Japanese CAD patients compared to major ethnic groups in the US, including Caucasian, Hispanic, and African-American CAD patients. The characteristics and outcomes of Japanese CAD patients were similar to those of Asian-Americans, despite the sample size limitations in the US dataset.
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.