Trial reportYonsei medical journal2016
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Is More Beneficial Than Optimal Medical Therapy in Elderly Patients with Angina Pectoris.
Trial report in Yonsei medical journal, 2016. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment Strategies for Chronic Coronary Heart Disease with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction or Preserved Ejection Fraction-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Pathophysiology : the official journal of the International Society for Pathophysiology · 2023Review
- Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Is Not Superior to Optimal Medical Therapy in Chronic Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between the Right and Left Radial Artery Approaches from the Korean Transradial Coronary Intervention Registry.Yonsei medical journal · 2017Article
- Management of stable angina pectoris in private healthcare settings in South Africa.Cardiovascular journal of AfricaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeData comparing the clinical benefits of medical treatment with those of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in an elderly population with angina pectoris are limited. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy of elective PCI versus optimal medical treatment (OMT) in elderly patients (between 75 and 84 years old) with angina pectoris. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred seventy-seven patients with significant coronary artery stenosis were randomly assigned to either the PCI group (n=90) or the OMT group (n=87). The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse events in the 1-year follow-up period that included cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, and stroke.
resultsMajor adverse events occurred in 5 patients (5.6%) of the PCI group and in 17 patents (19.5%) of the OMT group (p=0.015). There were no significant differences between the PCI group and the OMT group in cardiac death [hazard ratio (HR) for the PCI group 0.454; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.041-5.019, p=0.520], myocardial infarction (HR 0.399; 95% CI 0.039-4.050, p=0.437), or stroke (HR 0.919; 95% CI 0.057-14.709, p=0.952). However, the PCI group showed a significant preventive effect of the composite of major adverse events (HR 0.288; 95% CI 0.106-0.785, p=0.015) and against the need for coronary revascularization (HR 0.157; 95% CI 0.035-0.703, p=0.016).
conclusionElective PCI reduced major adverse events and was found to be an effective treatment modality in elderly patients with angina pectoris and significant coronary artery stenosis, compared to OMT.
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.