ArticleBrazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery2024
Evaluation of the Patients with Recurrent Angina After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.
Article in Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery, 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.
- Development and validation of a machine learning predictive model for one-month post-revascularization angina in patients who had undergone PCI or CABG.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Longitudinal analysis of psychometric properties of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire among patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting in Serbia.Population health metrics · 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
introductionIn this study, we aimed to evaluate the most common causes of recurrent angina after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and our treatment approaches applied in these patients.
methodsWe included all patients who underwent CABG, with or without percutaneous coronary intervention after CABG, at our hospital from September 2013 to December 2019. Patients were divided into two groups according to the time of onset of anginal pain after CABG. Forty-five patients (58.16 ± 8.78 years) had recurrent angina in the first postoperative year after CABG and were specified as group I (early recurrence). Group II (late recurrence) comprised 82 patients (58.05 ± 8.95 years) with angina after the first year of CABG.
resultsThe mean preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction was 53.22 ± 8.87% in group I, and 54.7 ± 8.58% in group II (P=0.38). No significant difference was registered between groups I and II regarding preoperative angiographic findings (P>0.05). Failed grafts were found in 27.7% (n=28/101) of the grafts in group I as compared to 26.8% (n=51/190) in group II (P>0.05). Twenty-four (53.3%) patients were treated medically in group I, compared with 54 (65.8%) patients in group II (P=0.098). There was a need for intervention in 46.6% (n=21) of group I patients, and in 34.1% (n=28) of group II patients.
conclusionRecurrent angina is a complaint that should not be neglected because most of the patients with recurrent angina are diagnosed with either native coronary or graft pathology in coronary angiography performed.
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.