ArticleESC heart failure2022
A comparison of drug-eluting stent and coronary artery bypass grafting in mildly to moderately ischemic heart failure.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction deemed not suitable for surgical revascularisation. A clinical consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) in collaboration with the ESC Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Epidemiology and current management of cardiovascular disease in China.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2024Article
- A comparison of drug-eluting stent and coronary artery bypass grafting in mildly to moderately ischemic heart failure.ESC heart failure · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe best revascularization strategy for patients with ischaemic heart failure (IHF) remains unclear. Current evidence and guidelines mainly focus on patients with severe ischaemic heart failure (ejection fraction [EF] < 35%). There are limited data comparing clinical outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with implantation of drug-eluting stents (DESs) in patients with mild to moderate ischaemic heart failure (EF 35-50%). It is therefore unknown whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES implantation can provide comparable outcomes to CABG in these patients. METHODS AND
resultsFrom January 2016 to December 2017, we enrolled patients with mildly to moderately reduced EF (35-50%) who had undergone PCI with DESs or CABG. Patients with a history of CABG, presented with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI) or acute heart failure, and patients who had undergone CABG concomitant valvular or aortic surgery were excluded. Propensity score-matching analysis was performed between the two groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression were applied to assess all-cause mortality and individual end points. A total of 2050 patients (1330 PCIs and 720 CABGs) were included, and median follow-up was 45 months (interquartile range 40 to 54). There were significant differences in all-cause death between the two groups: 77 patients in the PCI group and 27 in the CABG group (DES vs. CABG: 5.8% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.045). After propensity score matching for the entire population, 601 matched pairs were obtained. The long-term cumulative rate of all-cause death was significantly different between the two groups (DES vs. CABG: 5.8% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.006). No differences were found in the rates of cardiac death (DES vs. CABG: 4.8% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.096), recurrent MI (DES vs. CABG: 4.0% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.234), and stroke (DES vs. CABG: 6.8% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.163). The rate of repeat coronary revascularization was significantly higher in the PCI group than in the CABG group (12.1% vs. 6.0%, P = 0.000).
conclusionsConsidering the higher long-term survival rate and lower repeat-revascularization rate, CABG may be superior to DES implantation in patients with mildly to moderately reduced EF (35-50%) and significant CAD.
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.