ArticleScientific reports2024
Impacts of the SYNTAX score I, II and SYNTAX score II 2020 on left main revascularization.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Role of homocysteine, vitamins B12, B6, B1, and folate in Saudi patients with premature acute coronary syndrome.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Utilidad del sistema de puntuación UK-BCIS CHIP Score para la estratificación del riesgo en procedimientos coronarios complejos.Archivos de cardiologia de Mexico · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) with a high SYNTAX score (SS) were excluded from randomized studies that comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We sought to compare PCI and CABG in the real-world practice and investigate the impact of SS I, SS II, and SS II 2020 on clinical outcomes. In total, 292 Patients with LMCAD (173 PCI, 119 CABG) treated between 2017 and 2021 were enrolled. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI). The mean SS I was high in both groups (PCI vs. CABG: 31.64 ± 11.45 vs. 32.62 ± 11.75, p = 0.660). The primary outcome occurred in 28 patients (16.2%) in the PCI group and in 19 patients (16.0%) in the CABG group without significant difference [adjusted hazard ratio, 95% CI = 0.98 (0.51-1.90), p = 0.97] over the follow-up period (26.9 ± 17.7 months). No significant difference was observed in all-cause mortality (11.6% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.93) or stroke rates (3.5% vs. 5.0%, p = 0.51) between groups. However, PCI was associated with higher MI (4.6% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.05) and revascularization rates (26% vs. 5.9%, p < 0.001). Prognostic value of the SS I, SS II and SS II 2020 on the primary outcome was not relevant in the PCI group. Among patients with LMCAD, PCI and CABG did not significantly differ in the composite endpoint of all-cause death, stroke, and MI. These results support the potential expansion of PCI indications in LMCAD management for whom are ineligible for CABG with complex coronary artery disease.
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.