ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2020
Comparison of clinical outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting using stratified SYNTAX scores.
Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- External validation of SYNTAX score II in a real-world cohort undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCoronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are common procedures for managing coronary artery disease (CAD); however, optimal methods of comparing post-procedure outcomes are unclear. We evaluated the reliability of Synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with Taxus and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX) scores and investigated differences in long-term outcomes after CABG among groups with different SYNTAX scores.
methodsAccording to patient selection criteria used in the SYNTAX trial, 368 patients who underwent isolated initial CABG between 2003 and 2014 at Kurashiki Central Hospital were stratified into three SYNTAX score I groups (low: < 23, intermediate: 23 to < 33, and high: ≥ 33) and three SYNTAX score II groups (low: < 30, intermediate: 30 to < 40, and high: ≥ 40). Group outcomes were compared. Overall 4-year mortality data for SYNTAX score II were compared with the cohort data.
resultsThere were no significant differences in all-cause death, 10-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), myocardial infarction, and stroke data in the SYNTAX score I groups. As SYNTAX score II increased, all-cause death and MACCEs rates rose significantly. Four-year mortality at our facility was 11.0 ± 1.7%, whereas that predicted by SYNTAX score II was 12.0 ± 11.1%. The predicted data were close to the clinical data, but not statistically significant, with an area under the curve of 0.769.
conclusionsSYNTAX score II demonstrated reasonable predictive performance for outcomes after CABG, whereas SYNTAX score I did not. With SYNTAX score systems, treatment options should be discussed with a heart team to achieve better outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32300941What 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.