ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs. Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Treating In-Stent Restenosis in Unprotected-Left Main: LM-DRAGON-Registry.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04968977 (Long-term Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Treating In-stent Restenosis in Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery), which is not on this 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.
Long-term Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Treating In-stent Restenosis in Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery: Multicenter LM-DRAGON Registry
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term survival in patients with acute coronary syndrome and prior coronary artery bypass grafting stratified by the number of significantly stenosed and occluded native coronary arteries.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 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
45 authors at 14 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Data regarding management of patients with unprotected left main coronary artery in-stent restenosis (LM-ISR) are scarce. Objectives: This study investigated the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of unprotected LM-ISR. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent PCI or CABG for unprotected LM-ISR were enrolled. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and stroke. Results: A total of 305 patients were enrolled, of which 203(66.6%) underwent PCI and 102(33.4%) underwent CABG. At 30-day follow-up, a lower risk of cardiac death was observed in the PCI group, compared with the CABG-treated group (2.1% vs. 7.1%, Conclusions: This analysis of patients with LM-ISR revealed a lower incidence of cardiac death in PCI compared with CABG in short-term follow-up. During the long-term follow-up, no differences in MACCE were observed, but patients treated with CABG less often required TVR. Visual overview: A visual overview is available for this article. Registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04968977.
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.