ReviewCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2019
Advances in Management of Stable Coronary Artery Disease: the Role of Revascularization?
Review in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combination therapy with moderate-intensity statins and ezetimibe and risk of incident PCI/CABG in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a propensity-matched cohort study.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Article
- Relationship between Expression of Plasma lncRNA-HEIH and Prognosis in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease.Disease markers · 2021Article
- Risk factors for acute pulmonary embolism in patients with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: implications for nursing.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Observational
- Use of the right internal mammary artery and the great saphenous vein for left anterior descending artery revascularization in patients whose left internal mammal artery cannot be used: a study based on transit-time flow measurement.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewCoronary artery disease remains the most common cause of death worldwide. In patients with biomarker-positive acute coronary syndrome, the combination of guideline-directed medical therapy with routine revascularization is associated with improved outcomes. However, the role of routine revascularization in stable ischemic heart disease, in addition to medical therapy, remains a matter of debate. In this review, we aimed to describe the role of revascularization in stable ischemic heart disease. RECENT
findingsRevascularization is indicated in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and progressive or refractory symptoms, despite medical management. When guided by ischemia presence, revascularization has failed to show survival benefit, compared with medical therapy alone in multiple clinical trials. On the other hand, revascularization guided by coronary lesion severity, assessed by FFR or iFR, has been shown to offer survival benefit and improvement in symptom severity. PCI-revascularization of unprotected left main disease is feasible with comparable to surgical approach outcomes. Clinical decision to perform revascularization in stable ischemic heart disease necessitates a heart team approach, and no simple algorithm can guide this process. Further studies are required to assess the benefit of routine revascularization, in combination to medical therapy, in this population.
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.