ArticleEuropean heart journal2025
Medical therapy and outcomes in REVIVED-BCIS2 and STICHES: an individual patient data analysis.
Article in European heart journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of baseline risk of death or hospitalization on effectiveness of revascularization in patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction-a prespecified analysis of REVIVED-BCIS2.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2025Trial
- Invasive and medical management approaches to non-acute myocardial ischaemic syndromes.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2026Review
- Bidirectional impact between cardiovascular comorbidities and heart failure: an updated position paper from the Italian society of cardiology (SIC) working group on heart failure.Heart failure reviews · 2026Article
- Surgical Risk and Revascularization-An Update.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Beyond CABG vs. PCI: Contemporary and Future Coronary Revascularisation from Historical Evolution to Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Hybrid Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Role of Coronary Revascularization in Patients with Ischemic Heart Disease and Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Management of Ischemic Heart Disease in Patients With Heart Failure: JACC: Heart Failure Position Statement.JACC. Heart failure · 2025Review
- Guideline-directed medical therapy after revascularization and outcomes in ischaemic cardiomyopathy.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Surgical Risk and Long-Term Mortality With PCI and CABG in Ischemic Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- Best evidence for coronary revascularization - multisociety endorsement of the 2024 ESC guidelines.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsIn the Surgical Treatment for Ischaemic Heart Failure Trial Extension Study (STICHES), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) improved outcomes of patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction receiving medical therapy, whereas in the Revascularization for Ischaemia Ventricular Dysfunction trial (REVIVED-BCIS2), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) did not. The aim of this study was to explore differences in outcomes of participants treated with medical therapy alone in STICHES vs. REVIVED-BCIS2 and to assess the incremental benefit of CABG or PCI.
methodsPooled analysis of adjusted individual participant data from two multicentre randomized trials. All patients had left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and coronary artery disease and received medical therapy. Participants were randomized 1:1 to CABG (STICHES) or PCI (REVIVED-BCIS2). The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death and hospitalization for heart failure over all available follow-up.
resultsA total of 1912 participants (88% male, 76% white ethnicity) were included with 98.3% completeness of follow-up for the primary outcome. The median follow-up was 118 months in STICHES and 41 months in REVIVED-BCIS2. Those receiving medical therapy alone in REVIVED-BCIS2 had fewer primary outcome events than those receiving medical therapy alone in STICHES (adjusted hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.48-0.74, P < .001). Patients receiving PCI in REVIVED-BCIS2 were less likely to experience a primary outcome event than those receiving CABG in STICHES. Adjusted outcomes of patients treated with CABG in STICHES were worse than those receiving medical therapy alone in REVIVED-BCIS2.
conclusionsPatients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy receiving medical therapy in REVIVED-BCIS2 had better outcomes than those in STICHES, with or without CABG surgery. Further trials comparing CABG, PCI, and medical therapy in this population are warranted.
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.