ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2018
Multiple coronary stenting negatively affects myocardial recovery after coronary bypass grafting.
Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk stratification of outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting in ischemic cardiomyopathy with symptomatic heart failure.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Analysis of influential factors of stent-related adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention more than twice: a single-center retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to elucidate the relationship between the magnitude of myocardial recovery after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and the prognosis and to explore the predictors of myocardial non-recovery.
methodsEighty-one patients with a preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40% who underwent isolated CABG between 2002 and 2015 and had undergone echocardiographic follow-up (median follow-up, 3.1 years; interquartile range 1.2-6.0 years) were analyzed. The Recovery group comprised patients with LVEF improvement ≥ 10%, whereas the Non-recovery group comprised those with an LVEF improvement < 10%. Group differences in overall survival, freedom from major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), and readmission due to heart failure were evaluated. In addition, the risk factors for LVEF non-recovery were evaluated in a multivariate analysis.
resultsA total of 39 patients (48%) were in the Recovery group, whereas 42 patients (52%) were in the Non-recovery group. Although the survival and freedom from MACE rates were comparable, the rate of freedom from heart failure requiring hospitalization at 1, 5, and 8 years of follow-up was significantly lower in the Non-recovery group than in the Recovery group (p = 0.012). A history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was an exclusive independent risk factor for post-CABG myocardial non-recovery (odds ratio, 16.0; 95% confidence interval, 3.44-125). Furthermore, the number of coronary stents was negatively correlated with LVEF recovery (r = - 0.460, p = 0.024).
conclusionsGreat consideration should be taken when performing CABG in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and a history of PCI, particularly in those with multiple coronary stents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29761271What 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.