ArticleThe Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology2022
Long-term effects of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery surgery in elderly with multi-vessel coronary artery disease.
Article in The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology, 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.
- An Euroheart-Based Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Registry in Vietnam: Design, Rationale, and Preliminary Results.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe most prevalent illness among the elderly is coronary artery disease (CAD), and most of this population present with multi-vessel CAD which constitutes a common management difficulty among elderly people. This study aimed to compare long-term consequences of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) revascularization in elderly patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease.
resultsThis retrospective study evaluated 100 elderly patients with multi-vessel CAD divided into two groups, group 1 the PCI group and group 2 the CABG group. The main findings of the study showed that CABG group had a longer hospital stay than the PCI group (8.16 vs. 2.02 days; P < 0.001). A considerably higher mean residual SYNTAX score was observed in the PCI group than CABG group which was 1.15 and 0.2, respectively (p-value < 0.001). The in-hospital major adverse cardiac events rate (MACE) in both groups was not statistically significant. Regarding the in-hospital mortality rate, although it was higher in the CABG group (6%) versus 2% in the PCI group, yet it was not statistically significant. The long-term MACE in this study revealed that 12.2% of PCI patients had heart failure compared to 6.4% in the CABG group, which was statistically insignificant. In the long-term follow-up, the revascularization rate of CABG group was higher than the PCI group; however, it was statistically insignificant. CABG group had a higher rate of stroke than PCI group being 4.3% and 2%, respectively; yet this difference was not statistically considerable. The long-term mortality rate among the PCI and CABG group was 10.2% and 4.3%, respectively.
conclusionsElderly patients with multi-vessel CAD, PCI with stenting, and CABG were statistically equivalent in long-term death and MI rates, stroke, repeat revascularization. A non-statistically notable distinction between the two groups as regards MACE, composite of death or MI, and all-cause mortality was found. This may have implication on choice of management strategy among elderly patients with multi-vessel 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.