ArticleCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2022
The performance of SYNTAX score versus the coronary angiogram standard evaluation in the prediction of cardiovascular events in a cohort of patients with stable coronary heart disease.
Article in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Association of SYNTAX score, ankle-brachial index, and toe-brachial index with peripheral arterial disease following CABG.ARYA atherosclerosis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Scores for prediction of cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) submitted to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or medical-therapy (MT), such as the SYNTAX score (SXscore), have been proposed, but there is no comparative assessment of their performance with the coronary angiogram standard evaluation (CASE). This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the SXscore versus the CASE in the prediction of major cardiovascular outcomes (MACCE) in patients with chronic CAD who were treated with MT or additionally submitted to CABG or PCI. Methods: Prospective cohort study of 454 patients with CAD referred for elective diagnostic coronary angiography in Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Brazil, with 40 years of age or over, which were followed on average for 6±2.0 years. Patients with acute coronary syndromes, valvular heart disease, aortic diseases, previous coronary revascularization, heart failure, chronic renal disease, history of cancer, or severe psychiatric illness were excluded. Agreement between the scores was evaluated by Kappa statistics. The performance of the scores to predict MACCE was evaluated by Cox proportional hazard models. Areas under the ROC curves were compared by the DeLong test. Results: Patients with moderate to high SXscores or with left main or multivessel CAD (LMMCAD) in the CASE evaluation had higher rates of all-cause death and MACCE than those with low SXscore or without LMMCAD. After adjusting for confounding, only LMMCAD remained associated with the incidence of all-cause death in the total sample (HR =2.81;95% CI: 1.17-6.74) and for MACCE in patients undergoing MT (HR =8.72; 95% CI: 1.73-44.10). The ROC curves for all treatments were similar. Kappa statistics was not significant in patients submitted to MT, poor for patients treated by PCI and fair for the whole sample and patients treated with CABG. Conclusions: The severity of CAD defined by CASE or the SXscore provides similar prediction of the occurrence of cardiovascular events in patients submitted to clinical, PCI or CABG therapies. CASE is easier to do and may be the preferential method in the stratification of risk of patients with stable CAD.
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.