ReviewCureus2022
Comparative Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ten year outcomes in three vessel disease treated by CABG versus PCI in an Eastern European registry.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cardiovascular comorbidities in hospitalized patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and factors associated with a higher case-fatality rate.Future cardiology · 2025Article
- Outcomes of myocardial revascularization in patients with obesity and multivessel coronary artery disease.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2024Article
- Long-term mortality after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and risk factors for mortality.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Comparative Efficacy of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in the Treatment of Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Recent Randomized Controlled Trials.Cardiology research · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery are the options for revascularization in coronary artery disease (CAD). This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of CABG and PCI for the management of patients with CAD. The meta-analysis was conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched for relevant articles. The reference list of included articles was also searched manually for additional publications. Primary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularization. In total, 12 randomized control trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis encompassing 9,941 patients (4,954 treated with CABG and 4,987 with PCI). The analysis showed that PCI was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10-1.45) and revascularization (RR = 2.42, 95% CI = 1.82-3.21). However, no significant differences were reported between two arms regarding cardiovascular mortality (RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.96-1.39), myocardial infarction (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.82-1.67), and stroke (RR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.35-1.16). CABG was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and revascularization compared to PCI. However, no significant difference was reported in the risk of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke between the two groups.
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.