Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36277662›Full record

ArticleHeart international2020

Is There Still a Place for Revascularisation in the Management of Stable Coronary Artery Disease Following the ISCHEMIA Trial?

Andre Briosa E Gala, Nick Curzen

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Heart international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01471522 (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 83% 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.

NCT01471522 nacompletednot on this map

International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA)

TypeinterventionalSponsorNYU Langone HealthRan2012 to 2023Enrolled5,179ConditionsCardiovascular Diseases, Coronary Disease, Coronary Artery Disease, Heart DiseasesArmscardiac catheterization, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention, Lifestyle, Medication
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andre Briosa E GalaCoronary Research Group, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Nick CurzenCoronary Research Group, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ISCHEMIA trial (International study of comparative health effectiveness with medical and invasive approaches; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01471522) has informed practice in patients with stable angina and confirms what other less definitive data have taught us, that in the absence of severe symptoms, significant left main disease or significant left ventricular dysfunction, there is no prognostic benefit of an early invasive/revascularisation strategy with optimal medical therapy (OMT) over OMT alone. Like all quality randomised trials, it has nuances: the invasive treatment group had much better relief of angina than the OMT alone group, and the rate of spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI) in follow-up was lower in the invasive group, although only after a prevalence of periprocedural MI. The clinical outcome consequence of the MI data, if indeed there is one, will only become clear at later follow-up. OMT is a powerful treatment, and reflex revascularisation in patients with little or no angina is not.

Indexed as

ISCHEMIA trialoptimal medical therapy (OMT)stable coronary artery disease (CAD)

Identifiers

PMID36277662
PMCPMC9524617
OpenAlexW3081890366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.