SynthesisJournal of interventional cardiology2020
Percutaneous Intervention or Bypass Graft for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of interventional cardiology, 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.
- Serum Periostin as a Novel Biomarker for Predicting 30-Day Major Adverse Cardiac Events After Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2025Article
- Sex Differences in Patients Undergoing Left Main Stem Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Angina: Data From a National Registry.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Article
- The Current State of Coronary Revascularization: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for stable left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) remains controversial.
methodsDigital databases were searched to compare the major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and its components. A random effect model was used to compute an unadjusted odds ratio (OR).
resultsA total of 43 studies (37 observational and 6 RCTs) consisting of 29,187 patients (PCI 13,709 and CABG 15,478) were identified. The 30-day rate of MACCE (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42-0.76;
conclusionPCI might offer early safety advantages, while CABG provides greater durability in terms of lower long-term risk of ischemic events. There appears to be an equivalent risk for all-cause mortality.
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.