Observational studyHeart (British Cardiac Society)2020
Coronary artery bypass graft versus percutaneous coronary intervention in acute heart failure.
Observational study in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01389843 (Registry), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
Registry (Prospective Cohort) for Heart Failure in Korea (KorAHF)
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Improves Survival Without Increasing the Risk of Stroke in Patients with Ischemic Heart Failure in Comparison to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis With 54,173 Patients.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Ten-year outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and heart failure.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2025Article
- The Current State of Coronary Revascularization: Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Versus Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
- A comparison of drug-eluting stent and coronary artery bypass grafting in mildly to moderately ischemic heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2022Article
- Effect of Heart Failure on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Severe Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
- Paradigm Shifts of Heart Failure Therapy: Do We Need Another Paradigm?International journal of heart failure · 2020Review
- Residual Gensini Score Is Associated With Long-Term Cardiac Mortality in Patients With Heart Failure After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Circulation reports · 2020Article
- Myocardial ischemia and coronary disease in heart failure.Heart failure reviews · 2020Review
- Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Acute Ischemic Heart Failure: Where do We Stand? (And Where Should We Go?).Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgeryArticle
- Current Landscape and Future Directions of Coronary Revascularization in Ischemic Systolic Heart Failure: A Review.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsReview
- Current Practice of State-of-the-Art Coronary Revascularization in Patients with Heart Failure.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgeryArticle
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 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMyocardial ischaemia is a leading cause of acute heart failure (AHF). However, optimal revascularisation strategies in AHF are unclear. We aimed to compare two revascularisation strategies, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), in patients with AHF.
methodsAmong 5625 consecutive patients enrolled prospectively in the Korean Acute Heart Failure registry from March 2011 to February 2014, 717 patients who received CABG or PCI during the index hospitalisation for AHF were included in this analysis. We compared adverse outcomes (death, rehospitalisation for HF aggravation or cardiovascular causes, ischaemic stroke and a composite outcome of death and rehospitalisation for HF aggravation or cardiovascular causes) with the use of propensity score matching.
resultsFor the propensity score-matched cohort with 190 patients, CABG had a lower risk of all-cause mortality than PCI (83 vs 147 deaths per 1000 patient-years; HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.96, p=0.033) during the median follow-up of 4 years. There was also a trend towards lower rates of rehospitalisation due to cardiovascular events or HF aggravation. Subgroup analysis revealed that the adverse outcomes were significantly lower in the CABG group than in PCI group, especially in patients with old age, three-vessel diseases, significant proximal left anterior descending artery disease and those without left main vessel disease or chronic total occlusion.
conclusionsCompared with PCI, CABG is associated with significant lower all-cause mortality in patients with AHF. Further studies should evaluate proper revascularisation strategies in AHF. CLINICAL
trial registrationNCT01389843; Results.
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.