ReviewCardiovascular drugs and therapy2024
Medical Therapy After CABG: the Known Knowns, the Known Unknowns, and the Unknown Unknowns.
Review in Cardiovascular drugs and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Indobufen versus Aspirin After CABG in Septuagenarians: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Article
- Bilateral skeletonized IMAs used as "in situ" grafts for different coronary territories: long-term propensity matching study.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2025Article
- Bilateral sceletonized internal mammary arteries for myocardial revascularization in elderly patients.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2025Article
- Coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in single-vessel left anterior descending artery disease: mid-term propensity matching study.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMedical therapies play a central role in secondary prevention after surgical revascularization. While coronary artery bypass grafting is the most definitive treatment for ischemic heart disease, progression of atherosclerotic disease in native coronary arteries and bypass grafts result in recurrent adverse ischemic events. The aim of this review is to summarize the recent evidence regarding current therapies in secondary prevention of adverse cardiovascular outcomes after CABG and review the existing recommendations as they pertain to the CABG subpopulations. RECENT
findingsThere are many pharmacologic interventions recommended for secondary prevention in patients after coronary artery bypass grafting. Most of these recommendations are based on secondary outcomes from trials which include but did not focus on surgical patients as a cohort. Even those designed with CABG in mind lack the technical and demographic scope to provide universal recommendations for all CABG patients.
conclusionRecommendations for medical therapy after surgical revascularization are chiefly based on large-scale randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. Much of what is known about medical management after surgical revascularization results from trials comparing surgical to non-surgical approaches and important characteristics of the operative patients are omitted. These omissions create a group of patients who are relatively heterogenous making solid recommendations elusive. While advances in pharmacologic therapies are clearly adding to the armamentarium of options for secondary prevention, knowing what patients benefit most from each therapeutic option remains challenging and a personalized approach is still required.
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.