ArticleKorean circulation journal2025
Outcomes of Deferring Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Without Physiologic Assessment for Intermediate Coronary Lesions.
Article in Korean circulation journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00743899 (Conservative Versus Aggressive Revascularization in Patients With Intermediate Lesions Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Angiography Guidance Alone), which is not on this 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.
Conservative Versus Aggressive Revascularization in Patients With Intermediate Lesions Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Angiography Guidance Alone (SMART-CASE)
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differential Outcomes of Beta-Blockers According to Heart Rate Following Myocardial Infarction with Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2026Article
- Is the Jury Still Out for Judging the Right Decision for Intermediate Stenosis?Korean circulation journal · 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesOutcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain. We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment.
methodsA total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years.
resultsThe number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20-14.73; p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs. 0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24-15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization.
conclusionsFor intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00743899.
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.