ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2020
Long-Term Outcomes of Patients with Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease Treated with Percutaneous Angioplasty versus Bypass Grafting: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass graft for left main coronary artery disease in patients with prior cerebrovascular disease: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2025Review
- Drug-Coated Balloon vs. Drug-Eluting Stents for De Novo Unprotected Left Main Stem Disease: The SPARTAN-LMS Study.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Article
- Left Main Coronary Artery Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Left Main Coronary Artery Disease-Current Management and Future Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimTreatment of patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCA) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with unprotected LMCA treated randomly by PCI or CABG.
methodsPubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov database searches identified five randomized trials (RCTs) including 4499 patients with unprotected LMCA comparing PCI (
resultsCompared to CABG, patients assigned to PCI had a similar rate of MACE (risk ratio (RR): 1.13; 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.36;
conclusionsThe findings of this meta-analysis suggest that the long-term survival and MACE of patients who underwent PCI for unprotected LMCA stenosis were comparable to those receiving CABG, despite a higher rate of repeat revascularization.
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.