ArticleEuropean journal of translational myology2025
Percutaneous coronary intervention
Article in European journal of translational myology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) in the treatment of Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes (NSTE-ACS). A literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, covering studies up to June 2024. Studies comparing PCI and CABG in patients with NSTE-ACS were included, focusing on clinical outcomes such as mortality, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and the need for repeat revascularization. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed. Statistical analysis was conducted using R software, with the Mantel-Haenszel method and random-effects model employed to pool effect sizes and assess heterogeneity. A total of 15 studies met the eligibility criteria, including 48,891 patients. The pooled risk ratio (RR) for mortality showed no significant difference between PCI and CABG (RR=1.09, 95% CI: 0.90-1.19, p=0.28). CABG was associated with a significantly lower risk of subsequent MI (RR=0.56, 95% CI: 0.38-0.61, p <0.01) and the need for repeat revascularization (RR=2.94, 95% CI: 2.30-3.76, p <0.01). Conversely, PCI had a lower associated risk of CVA (RR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.42-0.79, p <0.01). High heterogeneity was observed in mortality outcomes, indicating variability among studies. The findings suggest that while PCI and CABG have comparable mortality risks in NSTE-ACS patients, CABG offers superior protection against myocardial infarction and the need for repeat revascularization, whereas PCI is associated with a lower risk of cerebrovascular accidents. These results underscore the importance of individualized patient assessment in choosing the optimal revascularization strategy, considering patient-specific risk factors and clinical profiles.
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.