ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2015
Percutaneous coronary intervention strategies and prognosis for graft lesions following coronary artery bypass grafting.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Native Artery Versus Bypass Graft in Patients with Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Protective effect of active perfusion in porcine models of acute myocardial ischemia.Molecular medicine reports · 2016Article
- Vein graft failure: from pathophysiology to clinical outcomes.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2016Review
- Long-term outcomes of rotational atherectomy in coronary bifurcation lesions.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the prognosis of graft-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and native vessel (NV)-PCI, drug-eluting stents (DESs) and bare-metal stents (BMSs) for the treatment of graft lesions following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and to determine the risk factors for major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). A total of 289 patients who underwent PCI following CABG between August 2005 and March 2010 were retrospectively analyzed. The effects on survival were compared among patients who underwent NV- and graft-PCI, and DES and BMS implantation. Additionally, the risk factors for MACEs following PCI for graft lesions were analyzed. The findings showed that MACE-free and revascularization-free survival rates were significantly higher in the NV-PCI group compared with those in the graft-PCI group. There were 63 cases (29.0%) of MACEs in the DES group and 25 cases (52.1%) in the BMS group. In patients undergoing NV-PCI, the DES group had significantly fewer MACEs and less target vessel revascularization (TVR) than the BMS group. In patients undergoing graft-PCI, the DES group showed a tendency for fewer MACEs and a lower incidence of cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction and TVR compared with the BMS group. Diabetes, an age of >70 years and graft-PCI were independent risk factors for MACEs in patients post-PCI. It is concluded that NV-PCI has superior long-term outcomes compared with graft-PCI, and should therefore be considered as the first-line treatment for graft disease following CABG. Despite this, graft-PCI remains a viable option. DESs are the first choice for graft-PCI due to their safety and efficacy and their association with reduced mortality and MACE rate. Diabetes, older age and graft-PCI are independent risk factors for MACEs in patients post-CABG who are undergoing revascularization.
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.