ArticleCureus2024
Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Two-Country Perspective.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Treatments such as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are crucial for managing CAD. While CABG is often preferred for complex cases, many patients require PCI due to graft failure or new blockages post-CABG. This study evaluates PCI outcomes in Pakistani and Saudi patients with prior CABG, addressing the scarcity of regional data.
objectiveThe primary objective was to measure the success rate of PCI in post-CABG patients, defined as achieving less than 30% residual stenosis without major complications. Secondary objectives included assessing the incidence of restenosis, repeat revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) over one year.
methodsThis one-year prospective cohort study was conducted at multiple tertiary care hospitals in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, involving 246 participants aged 18 years and older who had previously undergone CABG. Participants underwent PCI using standard procedures. Data were collected on demographic information, clinical characteristics, procedural details, and follow-up outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25 (Released 2017; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States), with descriptive statistics summarizing the baseline characteristics. The chi-square test or Fisher's exact test compared categorical variables, and the t-test or Mann-Whitney U test was used for continuous variables. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThe mean age of the participants was 63.5 ± 10.2 years, with 73.2% being male. The PCI success rate was 91.5% (95% CI: 88.2-94.8%), with most patients achieving less than 30% residual stenosis. There were 15 cases (6.1%) of MACEs, including five myocardial infarctions (2.0%) and 10 urgent revascularizations (4.1%). Restenosis occurred in 20 patients (8.1%; 95% CI: 4.7-11.5%), and repeat revascularization was required in 18 patients (7.3%; 95% CI: 4.0-10.6%). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis indicated no significant difference in MACE-free survival between patients with and without restenosis (log-rank test, p=0.423).
conclusionThe high success rate of PCI in post-CABG patients across both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia suggests that it is a viable option even in complex cases. These findings can inform clinical practice, emphasizing the importance of consistent follow-up and tailored interventions to enhance patient outcomes.
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.