ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Prognostic Implication of Non-Obstructive Coronary Lesions: A New Classification in Different Settings.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Understanding Myocardial Infarction with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries (MINOCA): a comprehensive meta-analysis of clinical characteristics, management, and prognosis compared to MI with the Obstructive Coronary Artery (MIOCA).BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of Diabetes Duration on Major Adverse Cardiac Events in Patients with Non-Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Long-Term Clinical Impact of Patients with Multi-Vessel Non-Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Effect of nonobstructive coronary stenosis on coronary microvascular dysfunction and long-term outcomes in patients with INOCA.Clinical cardiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The clinical significance of non-obstructive coronary artery disease is the subject of debate. Our objective was to evaluate the long-term cardiovascular prognosis associated with non-obstructive coronary artery disease in patients undergoing coronary angiography, and to conduct a stratification by sex, diabetes, and clinical indication. We designed a multi-centre retrospective longitudinal observational study of 3265 patients that were classified into three groups: normal coronary arteries (lesion <20%, 1426 patients), non-obstructive coronary artery disease (20-50%, 643 patients), and obstructive coronary artery disease (>70%, 1196 patients). During a mean follow-up of 43 months, we evaluated a combined cardiovascular event: acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, or cardiovascular death. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazard models showed a worse prognosis in patients with non-obstructive coronary artery disease, in comparison with patients of normal coronary arteries group, in the total population (hazard ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.23-2.39; p for trend <0.001), in non-diabetics (hazard ratio 2.12, 95% confidence interval: 1.40-3.22), in women (hazard ratio 1.75, 95% confidence interval 1.10-2.77), and after acute coronary syndrome (hazard ratio 2.07, 95% confidence interval 1.25-3.44). In conclusion, non-obstructive coronary artery disease is associated with an impaired long-term cardiovascular prognosis. This association held for non-diabetics, women, and after acute coronary syndrome.
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.