Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27777293›Full record

Trial reportCirculation2016

Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Meds Matter: Impact of Adherence to Medical Therapy on Comparative Outcomes.

Paul Kurlansky, Morley Herbert, Syma Prince, Michael Mack

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Circulation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Percutaneous coronary interventionEuropean journal of translational myology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Coronary Artery Surgery: Past, Present, and Future.Rambam Maimonides medical journal · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Paul KurlanskyFrom Columbia University, New York, NY (P.K.); Medical City Dallas Hospital, Dallas, TX (M.H., S.P.); and Baylor Health Care System, Plano, TX (M.M.). pk2245@cumc.columbia.edu.
Morley HerbertFrom Columbia University, New York, NY (P.K.); Medical City Dallas Hospital, Dallas, TX (M.H., S.P.); and Baylor Health Care System, Plano, TX (M.M.).
Syma PrinceFrom Columbia University, New York, NY (P.K.); Medical City Dallas Hospital, Dallas, TX (M.H., S.P.); and Baylor Health Care System, Plano, TX (M.M.).
Michael MackFrom Columbia University, New York, NY (P.K.); Medical City Dallas Hospital, Dallas, TX (M.H., S.P.); and Baylor Health Care System, Plano, TX (M.M.).
Columbia University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiple studies have compared coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) with percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for coronary revascularization. There is considerable evidence that adherence to medical therapy can affect the outcomes of therapeutic interventions. However, the long-term influence of compliance with recommended medical therapy on the comparative outcomes of CABG versus PCI remains to be defined.

methodsAll non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing coronary revascularization in an 8-hospital network were followed for up to 8 years to determine medication history and major adverse cardiac events: all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and reintervention. All mortalities were checked against the Social Security Death Index. Survival curves were derived with Kaplan-Meier methods; hazard ratios were calculated with the Cox proportional hazard model; and propensity score matching was used to account for differences in patient selection.

resultsAmong the 973 CABG and 2255 PCI patients, Kaplan-Meier major adverse cardiac event-free survival curves demonstrated a significant benefit for antiplatelet, lipid-lowering, and β-blocker therapy in both the CABG and PCI groups (P=0.001 for all 3 medications). Cox regression identified compliance with optimal medical therapy as a more powerful predictor of major adverse cardiac event-free survival than choice of therapy (hazard ratio for noncompliance=2.79; 95% confidence limits, 2.19-3.54; P<0.001; hazard ratio for PCI versus CABG=1.68, 95% confidence limits, 138-2.04; P<0.001). In propensity-matched patients, CABG outcomes were superior to PCI outcomes in patients nonadherent to optimal medical therapy (P=0.001) but were not different in patients adherent to optimal medical therapy (P=0.574).

conclusionsRegardless of coronary revascularization strategy, medication adherence has a dramatic effect on long-term outcome. Among comparable patients who adhere to optimal medical therapy, outcomes of PCI and CABG may not differ; however, among nonadherent patients, CABG affords better major adverse cardiac event-free survival. Therefore, patient compliance with medical therapy may inform clinical decision making and should be incorporated into all future comparative studies of comparative coronary revascularization strategies.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery BypassPatient CompliancePercutaneous Coronary InterventionAgedDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNon-ST Elevated Myocardial InfarctionRisk FactorsSurvival Ratecoronary artery bypasscoronary artery diseasedrug therapypercutaneous coronary intervention

Identifiers

PMID27777293
OpenAlexW2534302282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.