ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020
Applicability and Eligibility of the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) for Patients who Underwent Revascularization with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Article 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term outcomes of periprocedural coronary dissection and perforation for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in a Japanese multicenter registry.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Diagnostic and Therapeutic Strategies for Stable Coronary Artery Disease Following the ISCHEMIA Trial.JACC. Asia · 2023Review
- Does the ISCHEMIA Trial Apply to My Patients?Current cardiology reports · 2022Review
- To the Future and Beyond: Recent Advances in the Application of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial, an early invasive strategy did not decrease mortality compared to a conservative strategy for stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) patients with moderate-to-severe ischemia, and the role of revascularization would be revised. However, the applicability and potential influence of this trial in daily practice remains unclear. Our objective was to assess the eligibility and representativeness of the ISCHEMIA trial on the patients with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). From a multicenter registry, we extracted a consecutive 13,223 SIHD patients with PCI (baseline cohort). We applied ISCHEMIA eligibility criteria and compared the baseline characteristics between the eligible patients and the actual study participants (randomized controlled trial (RCT) patients). In 3463 patients with follow-up information (follow-up cohort), the 2 year composite of major adverse cardiac events was evaluated between the eligible patients and RCT patients, as well as eligible and non-eligible patients in the registry. In the baseline cohort, 77.3% of SIHD patients with moderate-to-severe ischemia were eligible for the ISCHEMIA. They were comparable with RCT patients for baseline characteristics and outcomes unlike the non-eligible patients. In conclusion, the trial results seem applicable for the majority of PCI patients with moderate-to-severe ischemia except for the non-eligible patients.
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.