ArticleThe Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology2024
Outcomes of myocardial revascularization in patients with obesity and multivessel coronary artery disease.
Article in The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is uncertainty regarding the best revascularization approach-whether coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-for obese patients suffering from multi-vessel coronary artery disease.
results406 patients with low and intermediate SYNTAX scores (SS) underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents (n = 200, 100 with SS ≤ 22, and 100 with SS 23-32) and CABG (n = 206, 100 with SS ≤ 22, and 106 with SS 23-32). Patients were also categorized by body mass index (BMI): normal weight (12%, 48 patients), overweight (41.6%, 169 patients), and obese (46.6%, 189 patients). The follow-up period averaged 9 ± 1.9 years. The endpoints of the study were as follows: major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, a repeat revascularization, diminished left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and high SS (≥ 33) observed over time. When comparing PCI and CABG in overweight individuals, the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) following PCI was greater than after CABG (Hazard Ratio [HR] 2.7, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.1-6.7, p = 0.03). In patients with overweight and Class I obesity, CABG was associated with the risk of coronary atherosclerosis progression (SS ≥ 33) (HR 4.4, 95% CI 1.5-13, p = 0.009 and HR 4.9, 95% CI 1.9-12, p = 0.001, respectively); whereas PCI was connected with the likelihood of repeat revascularization (HR 2.7, 95% CI 1.6-4.55, p < 0.0001 and HR 2, 95% CI 1.3-3.1, p = 0.002, respectively). At the same time, for stented patients, Class III obesity was associated with the risk of repeat revascularization (HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.02-6, p = 0.044).
conclusionThere were no significant weight-related impacts on long-term outcomes among patients who underwent surgery. Whereas in stented patients, Class III obesity was associated with the risk of repeat revascularization. When comparing PCI and CABG, for overweight and Class I obesity patients, CABG was associated with a likelihood of coronary atherosclerosis progression (SS ≥ 33), while PCI was linked to the risk of repeat revascularization. For overweight patients, CABG outperformed PCI in terms of the risk of MI. For other adverse events in patients of different weight categories, PCI and CABG did not reveal any significant benefits.
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.