SynthesisArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2021
Physiology or Angiography-Guided Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2021. 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.
- Confirmatory factor analysis of the original posttraumatic growth inventory (PTCI) in a cardiac surgery sample.Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS · 2026Article
- Review
- Physiology-guided CABG: Is it Time for Cardiac Surgeons to Incorporate FFR Into Their Practice?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile invasive coronary angiography is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) involving the epicardial coronary vessels, coronary physiology-guided revascularization represents a contemporary gold-standard practice for the invasive management of patients with intermediate CAD. Nevertheless, the long-term results of assessing the severity of stenosis through physiology compared to the angiogram as the guide to bypass surgery - coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are still uncertain. This meta-analysis aims to assess the clinical outcomes of a physiology guided CABG compared to the angiography-guided CABG.
objectivesWe sought to determine if outcomes differ between a physiology guided CABG compared to an angiography-guided CABG.
methodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The last date for this search was June 2020, and all of the previous studies were included. We conducted a pooled risk-ratio meta-analysis for four main outcomes: all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). P-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran's Q test and quantified by the I2 index.
resultsWe identified five studies that included a total of 1,114 patients. A pooled meta-analysis showed no significant difference between a physiology guided strategy and an angiography-guided strategy in MI (risk ratio [RR] = 0.72; 95%CI, 0.39-1.33; I2 = 0%; p = 0.65), TVR (RR = 1.25; 95%CI = 0.73-2.13; I2 = 0%; p = 0.52), or MACE (RR = 0.81; 95%CI = 0.62-1.07; I2 = 0%; p = 1). The physiology guided strategy has 0.63 times the risk of all-cause death compared to the angiography-guided strategy (RR = 0.63; 95%CI = 0.42-0.96; I2 = 0%; p = 0.55).
conclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrated a reduction in all-cause death when a physiology guided CABG strategy was used. Nevertheless, the short follow-up period, small sample size of the included studies and the non-discrimination of the causes of death can largely justify these conclusions. Studies with an extended follow-up period of observation are required to draw more robust and definitive conclusions.
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.