Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35962199›Full record

ReviewHerz2022

Diabetes, heart failure, and myocardial revascularization: Is there a new message from the ISCHEMIA trial?

Franz-Josef Neumann

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Herz, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Franz-Josef NeumannKlinik für Kardiologie und Angiologie, Universitäts-Herzzentrum, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Campus Bad Krozingen, Südring 15, 79189, Bad Krozingen, Germany. franz-josef.neumann@universitaets-herzzentrum.de.
University Medical Center Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is no evidence that the indications for myocardial revascularization differ between patients with and without diabetes. Accepted indications include stable angina that cannot be adequately managed by medication, acute coronary syndromes, severely reduced left ventricular (LV) function due to coronary artery disease, left main stenosis, and advanced coronary artery disease causing substantial inducible ischemia. The recent ISCHEMIA trial challenged the criterion of ischemia. With respect to its primary endpoint, ISCHEMIA showed no benefit of an invasive strategy with systematic myocardial revascularization in patients with stable angina and moderate-to-severe ischemia compared with a conservative strategy. However, myocardial revascularization resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful reduction in angina and an improvement in quality of life. There was a significant reduction in prognostically relevant spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI) in the long term, which came at the cost of an increased rate of peri-interventional MI that was of minor prognostic relevance. The risk profile and number of patients included in the ISCHEMIA trial, as well as the duration of follow-up, are not sufficient to show that the lower incidence of spontaneous infarcts improved survival. In ISCHEMIA, there was no heterogeneity in treatment effect depending on diabetes.

Indexed as

Angina, StableCoronary Artery DiseaseDiabetes MellitusHeart FailureMyocardial InfarctionMyocardial IschemiaHumansIschemiaMyocardial RevascularizationQuality of LifeChronic coronary syndromeDiabetes mellitusLeft ventricular dysfunctionMyocardial infarctionMyocardial ischemia

Identifiers

PMID35962199
OpenAlexW4290948984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.