ReviewNature reviews. Cardiology2018
Revascularization in stable coronary disease: evidence and uncertainties.
Review in Nature reviews. Cardiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of initial invasive vs. initial conservative treatment strategies on recurrent and total cardiovascular events in the ISCHEMIA trial.European heart journal · 2022Trial
- Predictive value of systemic inflammatory response index (SIRI) for complex coronary artery disease occurrence in patients presenting with angina equivalent symptoms.Cardiology journal · 2024Article
- ANMCO-SIMEU consensus document: appropriate management of atrial fibrillation in the emergency department.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- MicroRNA‑194‑5p attenuates hypoxia/reoxygenation‑induced apoptosis in H9C2 cardiomyocytes by inhibiting the over‑activation of RAC1 protein.Molecular medicine reports · 2023Article
- Revascularization or medical therapy for stable coronary artery disease patients with different degrees of ischemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of myocardial perfusion.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2022Article
- Sex differences in mortality in stable patients undergoing vasodilator stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance.Open heart · 2021Article
- Medical and Revascularization Management of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: An Overview.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2021Review
- Coronary Revascularization and Long-Term Survivorship in Chronic Coronary Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- What Is the Clinical Impact of Stress CMR After the ISCHEMIA Trial?Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
- The myth of 'stable' coronary artery disease.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2020Review
- Enduring FAME of FFR-guided PCI.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2018Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although revascularization has been one of the primary treatment options for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) for about 50 years, the evidence base for its use is most robust in the area of acute coronary disease. By contrast, evidence - particularly from clinical trials - supporting the use of revascularization to improve clinical outcomes in stable CAD is in some important respects outdated in that it reflects therapies that predate both contemporary standards for optimal medical therapy and current revascularization techniques and technologies. Despite such limitations, these clinical trials still provide the foundation for many of the current guideline-based indications for coronary revascularization in patients with stable CAD. In this Review, we discuss the major factors underlying the clinical decision to perform revascularization in patients with stable CAD and examine the use and limitations of existing evidence on the choice for, and preferred methods of, revascularization, namely, CABG surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention.
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.