Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38722493›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2024

Routine Functional Testing or Standard Care in High-Risk Patients after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Nouman Arshad, Indah Sukmawati, Upul Wickramarachchi, Shrilla Banerjee, Fathima Aaysha Cader

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nouman ArshadKettering General Hospital, Rothwell Road, Kettering, NN16 8UZ, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-5313-3161
Indah SukmawatiSiloam Hospitals Lippo Village - Universitas Pelita Harapan, Tangerang, Indonesia.
Upul WickramarachchiLanka Hospitals, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Shrilla BanerjeeSurrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, Redhill, RH1 5RH, UK.
Fathima Aaysha CaderKettering General Hospital, Rothwell Road, Kettering, NN16 8UZ, UK. aaysha.cader@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9386-9706

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review aimed to collate the available evidence on outcomes following routine functional stress testing vs standard of care (i.e. symptom-guided stress testing) in high-risk patients following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). RECENT

findingsThe most recent pragmatic POST-PCI trial provided randomized evidence showing that routine functional stress testing post-PCI did not lead to a reduction in 2-year ischemic cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality, as compared to a symptom-guided standard-of-care approach. This was also true for sub-analyses including multivessel or left main disease, diabetics, as well as following imaging or physiology guided PCI. In the absence of a change in their clinical or functional status suggestive of stent failure, post-PCI routine periodic stress testing in stable patients on guideline-directed medical therapy is currently not recommended by American clinical practice guidelines. While evidence on the cost-effectiveness of routine stress testing strategy is scarce, physician, payer, and policy-level interventions to reduce inappropriate use of routine functional testing need to be addressed.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery DiseaseExercise TestPercutaneous Coronary InterventionStandard of CareCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentFunctional stress testingHigh-risk patientsPercutaneous coronary intervention

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.