ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2022
Evaluating the efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus the optimal drug therapy (ODT) for stable coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison between robot-assisted and manual percutaneous coronary intervention - an updated systematic review, meta-analysis, propensity-matched investigation, and trial sequential analysis.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2025Pooled it
- Percutaneous coronary intervention plus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) versus GDMT alone in adults with stable coronary artery disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Trends and predictive research on the global burden of ischemic heart disease from 1990 to 2021: an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease study 2021.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy for stable coronary artery disease: An umbrella review.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Natural Substances vs. Approved Drugs in the Treatment of Main Cardiovascular Disorders-Is There a Breakthrough?Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Many studies have reported potential benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus optimal drug therapy (ODT) for patients with stable coronary heart disease but with inconsistent results. To examine this, an explicit systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compared the clinical outcomes of PCI and ODT in these patients. Methods: The following terms were combined to search relative articles through databases PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and Web of Science published from January 2010 to November 2021 according to Participants, Intervention, Control, Outcomes, Study (PICOS) criteria: "coronary heart disease", "stable coronary heart disease", "stable angina pectoris", "percutaneous coronary intervention", "PCI", "percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty", "drug therapy", "optimized drug treatment", and "optimized drug therapy". The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.2, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Results: A total of 12 articles were included in the final analysis. There were 4,288 cases of PCI patients and 4,261 cases of ODT patients. The results showed that, when comparing PCI with ODT, there was a significant difference in the probability of myocardial infarction [relative risk (RR) =0.63; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.45-0.90] and the patient mortality (RR =0.51; 95% CI: 0.40-0.64). However, there was no significant difference in the prevalence of stroke (RR =1.33; 95% CI: 0.82-2.17), revascularization (RR =0.86; 95% CI: 0.46-1.62) and patient quality of life (MD =10.44; 95% CI: -1.84 to 22.73). Performance bias and detection bias were all unclear in the included studies and should be warned. Discussion: Compared with ODT, PCI reduced the mortality and myocardial infarction rate of patients with CTO or severe coronary artery stenosis. However, the incidence of stroke, revascularization, and quality of life of patients were not significant different between PCI and ODT. Performance bias and detection bias should be cautioned.
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.