ReviewInterventional cardiology (London, England)2023
Revascularisation for Ischaemic Cardiomyopathy.
Review in Interventional cardiology (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01920048 (REVascularisation for Ischaemic VEntricular Dysfunction), which is not on this 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.
REVascularisation for Ischaemic VEntricular Dysfunction (REVIVED): a Randomized Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (With Optimal Medical Therapy) Versus Optimal Medical Therapy Alone for Treatment of Heart Failure Secondary to Coronary Disease
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Return of Thallium-201 for American Patients: History, Radiopharmaceutical Features, and Current Applications.Current cardiology reports · 2026Review
- Optimizing Revascularization in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: Comparative Evidence on the Benefits and Indications of CABG and PCI.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Mitochondrial Melatonin: Beneficial Effects in Protecting against Heart Failure.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary artery disease is a leading cause of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Coronary artery bypass grafting appears to provide clinical benefits such as improvements in quality of life, reductions in readmissions and MI, and favourable effects on long-term mortality; however, there is a significant short-term procedural risk when left ventricular function is severely impaired, which poses a conundrum for many patients. Could percutaneous coronary intervention provide the same benefits without the hazard of surgery? There have been no randomised studies to support this practice until recently. The REVIVED-BCIS2 trial (NCT01920048) assessed the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in addition to optimal medical therapy in patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction and stable coronary artery disease. This review examines the trial results in detail, suggests a pathway for investigation and revascularisation in ischaemic cardiomyopathy, and explores some of the remaining unanswered questions.
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.