ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2018
Guidelines versus reality: is coronary stent application in three-vessel disease standard or the exception?
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2018. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- High stress hyperglycemia ratio predicts adverse clinical outcome in patients with coronary three-vessel disease: a large-scale cohort study.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2024Observational
- Methods for assessing guideline adherence for invasive procedures in the care of chronic coronary artery disease: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Guideline adherence in speech and language therapy in stroke aftercare. A health insurance claims data analysis.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The national guidelines for treatment of chronic coronary heart disease (CHD) recommend surgical coronary aortic bypass grafting (CABG) rather than percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with a coronary three-vessel disease. The epidemiology of three-vessel CHD and data about the application of different revascularisation strategies raise suspicion of deviation from the guidelines in the treatment of those patients. Claims data containing records of almost 10 million patients of the largest German statutory health insurance fund (Techniker Krankenkasse) were utilised to measure adherence to the guidelines for treatment of groups of patients with one-, two-, and three-vessel CHD, respectively. The impact of age, sex, and comorbidity on each patient's revascularisation procedure was investigated as well. There was no significant difference in the rate of PCI between the groups. In conclusion, the hypothesis that patients with a coronary three-vessel disease are not always treated according to the recommendations of the national guidelines could not be disproved by this study. Finally, the results of this study suggest that the best revascularisation strategy for each patient with two- and three-vessel disease should be decided upon by an interdisciplinary discussion between both cardiologists and cardiac surgeons.
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.