Trial reportClinical cardiology2025
Phenomapping the Response of Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy With Reduced Ejection Fraction to Surgical Revascularization.
Trial report in Clinical cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovative Advances in Non-Invasive Detection Technologies for Heart Failure: Synergistic Application of Multimodal Sensing and Intelligent Algorithms.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Deep learning for vessel segmentation and flow analysis to identify clusters associated with adverse outcomes in a fontan patient registry.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Predictors of Adverse Cardiovascular Events After CABG in Patients with Previous Heart Failure.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCoronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has demonstrated long-term mortality benefits in patients with HFREF and obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), but whether phenotypic heterogeneity influences the benefits of CABG is unknown. We applied clustering analysis to STICHES (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure Extension Study) to identify phenogroups with different long-term risk profiles and investigate differences in CABG benefits between phenogroups. METHODS AND
resultsSTICHES was a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of CABG in addition to medical therapy versus medical therapy alone. We split the STICHES participants into derivation (n = 753) and validation (n = 459) cohorts. We phenomapped the derivation cohort using penalized model-based clustering. We fit multivariable Cox models to investigate long-term differences in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and a composite of all-cause mortality/CV hospitalization between phenogroups and whether phenogroup assignment modified the effects of CABG on these outcomes. Findings were internally validated on the validation cohort. Four phenogroups were identified in the derivation cohort. The highest-risk group was at a twofold greater risk of death (HR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.4-2.9, p < 0.001) and CV death (HR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.3-3.1, p = 0.002), and a 1.5-fold greater risk for death/CV hospitalization (HR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.1-2.1, p = 0.016). Phenogroup assignment did not modify the effects of CABG on the outcomes (p > 0.05 for all). Similar results were obtained in the validation cohort.
conclusionsThe beneficial effects of CABG on all-cause mortality, CV mortality, and a composite of all-cause mortality and CV hospitalization persist despite phenotypic heterogeneity in HFREF and CAD.
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.