Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting to Treat Ischemic Cardiomyopathy?

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Versus Medicine in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: The STICH Randomized Clinical Trial.Circulation · 2022
   Trial
2. Heart Failure with Improved Ejection Fraction: Insight into the Variable Nature of Left Ventricular Systolic Function.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
   Review
3. Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Coronary Artery Diseases and Moderate Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2021
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Long-term Outcomes in Patients With Severely Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.2020

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as