ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2020
Re-evaluating the Role of CABG in Acute Coronary Syndromes.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comprehensive Review of Acute Coronary Syndrome and Bypass Surgery: Recent Advances, Timing, and Indicative Considerations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Comparison between Five Risk Scores in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Surgical Revascularization during the Index Hospitalization.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025Article
- Article
- The Value of Clinical Variables and the Potential of Longitudinal Ultrasound Carotid Plaque Assessment in Major Adverse Cardiovascular Event Prediction After Uncomplicated Acute Coronary Syndrome.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Serum VCAM-1 and ICAM-1 measurement assists for MACE risk estimation in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe use of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has markedly declined during the past decade, with an increase in the use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, long-term data continues to show survival advantages for patients undergoing CABG over PCI. We describe the current indications for and outcomes of CABG in patients who present with ACS. RECENT
findingsReal-world studies demonstrate better long-term outcomes with CABG than with PCI after NSTE-ACS. Staged CABG after culprit-vessel PCI for STEMI is also a feasible option in certain patients. In patients presenting with ACS and cardiogenic shock who are treated with CABG, the use of mechanical circulatory support has produced a limited but significant reduction in mortality. The optimal revascularization strategy after ACS depends on many variables. The pre-eminent factor in selecting the best mode of revascularization and improving outcomes is careful patient selection based on deliberation by an interdisciplinary heart team.
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.