ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2023
The Evolving Paradigm of Revascularization in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: from Recovery of Systolic Function to Protection Against Future Ischemic Events.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Myocardial Revascularization in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025Review
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
purpose of reviewWe aim to reevaluate how the assessment of myocardial viability can guide optimal treatment strategies for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) based on a more contemporary understanding of the mechanism of benefit of revascularization. RECENT
findingsThe assessment of viability in left ventricular (LV) segments with diminished contraction has been proposed as key to predict the benefit of revascularization and, therefore, as a requisite for the selection of patients to undergo this form of treatment. However, data from prospective trials have diverged from earlier retrospective studies. Traditional binary viability assessment may oversimplify ICM's complexity and the nuances of revascularization benefits. A conceptual shift from the traditional paradigm centered on the assessment of viability as a dichotomous variable to a more comprehensive approach encompassing a thorough understanding of ICM's complex pathophysiology and the salutary effect of revascularization in the prevention of myocardial infarction and ventricular arrhythmias is 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.