Observational studyBMC medicine2025
Comparative outcomes of invasive versus conservative strategy in stable coronary artery disease patients: a risk-stratification-based hypothesis-generative study.
Observational study in BMC medicine, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can improve the long-term prognosis of patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) in comparison to conservative treatment remains controversial. The present study sought to evaluate the impacts of initial invasive versus conservative strategy on long-term clinical outcomes for patients with SCAD stratified by risk scores.
methodsThis was a sub-analysis of the multicenter, observational Optimal antiPlatelet Therapy for Chinese patients with Coronary Artery Disease (OPT-CAD) study. Clinical outcomes were compared in SCAD patients who initially received PCI (invasive strategy) or conservative treatment according to risk stratification by OPT-CAD score. The primary outcome was ischemic events at 5 years, composed of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. Secondary outcomes included all-cause death, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2, 3, or 5, and 3 or 5 bleeding.
resultsThe conservative group comprised 1767 (58.0%) patients and the invasive group comprised 1278 (42.0%) patients. Overall, invasive strategy did not reduce the risk of ischemic events compared with conservative strategy but was associated with an increased risk of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13-2.26; P = 0.009). Similar results were observed in the low-risk patient subset (N = 2030). While in the moderate-to-high-risk subset (N = 1015), invasive strategy was associated with a reduced risk of ischemic events (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48-0.95; P = 0.02) and all-cause death (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.51-1.03; P = 0.07), and with no excessive risk of bleeding.
conclusionsInvasive strategy could not confer additional clinical benefits in patients with SCAD compared to conservative strategy, except in patients at moderate-to-high risk. The OPT-CAD risk score may be valuable to the guidance of optimal treatment strategy in SCAD patients.
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.