ArticleOpen heart
Six-minute walk distance after coronary artery bypass grafting compared with medical therapy in ischaemic cardiomyopathy.
Article in Open heart. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00023595 (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH)
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Alternative Prediction Equation for Evaluation of Six-Minute Walk Distance in Stable Coronary Artery Disease Patients.Frontiers in physiology · 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
18 authors at 16 institutions in 9 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: In patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction, coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) may decrease mortality, but it is not known whether CABG improves functional capacity. Objective: To determine whether CABG compared with medical therapy alone (MED) increases 6 min walk distance in patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction and coronary artery disease amenable to revascularisation. Methods: The Surgical Treatment in Ischemic Heart disease trial randomised 1212 patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction to CABG or MED. A 6 min walk distance test was performed both at baseline and at least one follow-up assessment at 4, 12, 24 and/or 36 months in 409 patients randomised to CABG and 466 to MED. Change in 6 min walk distance between baseline and follow-up were compared by treatment allocation. Results: 6 min walk distance at baseline for CABG was mean 340±117 m and for MED 339±118 m. Change in walk distance from baseline was similar for CABG and MED groups at 4 months (mean +38 vs +28 m), 12 months (+47 vs +36 m), 24 months (+31 vs +34 m) and 36 months (-7 vs +7 m), P>0.10 for all. Change in walk distance between CABG and MED groups over all assessments was also similar after adjusting for covariates and imputation for missing values (+8 m, 95% CI -7 to 23 m, P=0.29). Results were consistent for subgroups defined by angina, New York Heart Association class ≥3, left ventricular ejection fraction, baseline walk distance and geographic region. Conclusion: In patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction CABG compared with MED alone is known to reduce mortality but is unlikely to result in a clinically significant improvement in functional capacity. Trial registration number: NCT00023595.
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.