ReviewEuropean cardiology2023
Evidence-based Management of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease.
Review in European cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular profiling of coronary stent testenosis: A systematic review and functional analysis of implicated genes.Medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Coronary Intravascular Imaging: A Comprehensive Review of Techniques, Applications, and Future Directions.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- AI-guided refinement of coronary revascularization need in patients suspected of acute coronary syndrome.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- Drug-coated balloon angioplasty for catastrophic left main STEMI in a 24-year-old with antiphospholipid syndrome: a case report.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Innovations in Intracoronary Imaging: Present Clinical Practices and Future Outlooks.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) is associated with high morbidity and mortality due to the large myocardial mass at risk. Although medical treatment may be an option in selected low-risk patients, revascularisation is recommended to improve survival in the majority of patients presenting with a significant left main stenosis. In the past decade, multiple randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses have compared coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), finding controversial results. The strategy for LMCAD revascularisation is still challenging. Coronary anatomy complexity, clinical features and patient preferences are key elements to be considered by the heart team. The current guidelines define CABG as standard therapy, but the continuous improvements in PCI techniques, the use of intracoronary imaging and functional assessment make PCI a feasible alternative in selected patients, particularly in those with comorbidities and contraindications to CABG. This review analyses the most important studies comparing CABG versus PCI in patients with LMCAD.
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.