ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2020
Improving outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hemodynamic Significance of APEXCT Coronary Angiography Combined With Dynamic CT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in Assessing Restenosis After Coronary Stenting.The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- The impact of metabolic syndrome and triglyceride-glucose index on the risk of in-stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention: a retrospective study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Improved stent sharpness evaluation with super-resolution deep learning reconstruction in coronary CT angiography.The British journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Revascularization strategies for patients with established chronic coronary syndrome.European journal of clinical investigation · 2022Review
- Current topics in interventional cardiology.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a common cardiac procedure and there have been significant advances in the technologies over past decades that have improved the safety of these procedures. Various clinical trials and meta-analyses have shown that PCIs are associated with improved outcomes, especially among patients with acute coronary syndromes. However, the clinical benefit of PCIs among patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) other than improvement in anginal symptoms is less well established. The patients who have a significant burden of ischemia may benefit the most from revascularization. The achievement of complete revascularization, appropriate technique for stent deployment and intracoronary imaging during these procedures also can have a significant impact on the clinical outcomes. Moreover, patients with coronary artery disease should be managed with appropriate medical therapy after the PCIs. The procedural and non-procedural factors should be taken into consideration in order to optimize outcomes for patients with SIHD being treated with PCIs.
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.