ArticleBrazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery2022
Coexisting Coronary and Carotid Artery Disease: What We Did, What Happened.
Article in Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Results from Cardiovascular Examination Do Not Predict Cerebrovascular Macroangiopathy: Data from a Prospective, Bicentric Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is no complete consensus on the three surgical methods and long-term consequences for coexisting coronary and carotid artery disease. We retrospectively evaluated the surgical results in this high-risk group in our clinic for a decade.
methodsBetween 2005 and 2015, 196 patients were treated for combined carotid and coronary artery disease. A total of 50 patients were operated on with the staged method, 40 of which had carotid endarterectomy (CEA) priority, and 10 had coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) priority. CABG and CEA were simultaneously performed in 82 patients; and in 64 asymptomatic patients with unilateral carotid artery lesions and stenosis over 70%, only CABG was done (64 patients). Results were evaluated by uni-/multivariate analyses for perioperative, early, and late postoperative data.
resultsIn the staged group, interval between the operations was 2.82±0.74 months. Perioperative and early postoperative (30 days) parameters did not differ between groups (P-value < 0.05). Postoperative follow-up time was averaged 94.9±38.3 months. Postoperative events were examined in three groups as (A) deaths (all cause), (B) cardiovascular events (non-fatal myocardial infarction, recurrent angina, congestive heart failure, palpitation), and (C) fatal neurological events (amaurosis fugax, transient ischemic attack, and stroke). When group C events were excluded, event-free actuarial survival rates were similar in all three methods (P=0.740). Actuarial survival rate was significantly different when all events were included (P=0.027). Neurological events increased markedly between months 34 and 66 (P=0.004).
conclusionPerioperative and early postoperative event-free survival rates were similar in all three methods. By the beginning of the 34th month, the only CABG group has been negatively separated due to neurological events. In the choice of methodology, "most threatened organ priority'' was considered as clinical parameter.
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.