Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31560171›Full record

ArticleESC heart failure2019

Percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes in patients with stable coronary disease and left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Adam D DeVore, Eric Yow, Mitchell W Krucoff, Matthew W Sherwood, Linda K Shaw, Karen Chiswell, Christopher M O'Connor, Erik Magnus Ohman, Eric J Velazquez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ESC heart failure, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Heart Failure: Worth the Cost?Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2024
    Article
  6. Revascularisation for Ischaemic Cardiomyopathy.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Adam D DeVoreDepartment of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Eric YowDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, 200 Morris Street, 6318, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.
Mitchell W KrucoffDepartment of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Matthew W SherwoodInova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, VA, USA.
Linda K ShawDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, 200 Morris Street, 6318, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.
Karen ChiswellDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, 200 Morris Street, 6318, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.
Christopher M O'ConnorInova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, VA, USA.
Erik Magnus OhmanDepartment of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Eric J VelazquezYale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.

Funding

Duke Clinical Research Institute
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsWe sought to better understand the role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction. METHODS AND

resultsUsing data from the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease, we analysed patients who underwent coronary angiography at Duke University Medical Center (1995-2012) that had stable CAD amenable to PCI and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%. Patients with acute coronary syndrome or Canadian Cardiovascular Society class III or IV angina were excluded. We used propensity-matched Cox proportional hazards to evaluate the association of PCI with mortality and hospitalizations. Of 901 patients, 259 were treated with PCI and 642 with medical therapy. PCI propensity scores created from 24 variables were used to assemble a matched cohort of 444 patients (222 pairs) receiving PCI or medical therapy alone. Over a median follow-up of 7 years, 128 (58%) PCI and 125 (56%) medical therapy alone patients died [hazard ratio 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.68, 1.10)]; there was also no difference in the rate of a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization [hazard ratio 1.18 (95% confidence interval 0.96, 1.44)] between the two groups.

conclusionsIn this well-profiled, propensity-matched cohort of patients with stable CAD amenable to PCI and moderate or severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, the addition of PCI to medical therapy did not improve long-term mortality, or the composite of mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization. The impact of PCI on other outcomes in these high-risk patients requires further study.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery DiseaseVentricular Dysfunction, LeftAgedCoronary AngiographyFemaleHeart FailureHumansMaleMiddle AgedPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeCoronary artery diseaseHeart failureLeft ventricular dysfunctionOutcomes

Identifiers

PMID31560171
PMCPMC6989282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.