ReviewArchivos peruanos de cardiologia y cirugia cardiovascular
[Myocardial revascularization in left ventricular dysfunction].
Review in Archivos peruanos de cardiologia y cirugia cardiovascular. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Left ventricular dysfunction due to adverse remodeling constitutes the underlying structural anatomical condition of heart failure and is the main and most severe sequela of long-term coronary artery disease, and it is the only pathology that can benefit from surgical myocardial revascularization. For its control, there are current medical treatment guidelines supported by the favorable results of contemporary clinical trials. However, in recent studies, there was no benefit of surgical revascularization in addition to optimal medical therapy when compared to optimal medical therapy alone. The identification of myocardial viability to guide revascularization was also not favorable. The results of the extension of these trials showed benefit of revascularization treatment, but the detection of viability remained unfavorable. Increased left ventricular ejection fraction, as a marker of benefit from revascularization, was not associated with lower mortality. There are many reasons why the known advantages of revascularization were not identified. Despite this discrepancies, myocardial revascularization and the identification of viability in these patients are supported and are usually indications for routine treatment.
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.