ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2017
Comparison of Secondary Prevention Status between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Patients.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData are scarce regarding disparities in cardiovascular risk factor management between patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and those treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
objectiveWhether the goal achievement rates of cardiovascular risk factors were different between PCI and CABG patients.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the data retrieved from a clinical record database of patients admitted to Beijing Anzhen Hospital between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, who underwent PCI or CABG.
resultsCompared with the CABG group, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) < 1.8 mmol/L (28.6% vs. 24.7%; p < 0.01), LDL-C < 2.07 mmol/L (43.5% vs. 39.4%; p < 0.01) and blood pressure (BP) < 140/90 mm Hg (85.6% vs. 77.7%; p < 0.01) goal achievement rates were significantly higher in the PCI group. Compared with patients ≥ 60 years old: patients < 60 years old had better BP < 140/90 mm Hg goal achievement rates (87.7% vs. 84.4%; p < 0.01) in the PCI group, and better fasting blood-glucose (FBG) < 7 mmol/L (79.4% vs.72.0%; p < 0.01) and HbA1c < 7% (79.4% vs. 70.1%; p < 0.01) goal achievement rates in the CABG group. Compared with females: males had better LDL-C < 2.07 mmol/L (24.7% vs. 28.5%; p < 0.01), FBG < 7 mmol/L (71.8% vs.75.2%; p < 0.01) and HbA1c < 7% (70.4% vs. 74.1%; p < 0.01) goal achievement rates in the PCI group.
conclusionPatients in the PCI group were generally more likely than those in the CABG group to achieve LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L and BP goals. The control of cardiovascular risk factors differed between patients ≥ 60 years old and < 60 years old. Female patients were less likely to achieve LDL-C, FBG and HbA1c goals.
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.