ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Optimizing Revascularization in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: Comparative Evidence on the Benefits and Indications of CABG and PCI.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can dobutamine stress echocardiography predict improvement of left ventricular dyssynchrony after coronary artery bypass grafting?Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Association Between Revascularization and 30-Day Survival of Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Patients in Dr. Hasan Sadikin General Hospital.Vascular health and risk management · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ischemic cardiomyopathy remains a leading cause of heart failure, yet the optimal revascularization approach for patients with reduced left ventricular function remains uncertain. This review synthesizes current evidence on coronary revascularization strategies, emphasizing real-world applicability and individualized treatment. It critically evaluates the benefits and limitations of coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG] and percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], highlighting key knowledge gaps. Findings from the STICH trial demonstrate that CABG improves long-term survival despite an elevated early procedural risk, particularly in patients with extensive multivessel disease. In contrast, the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial suggests that PCI enhances quality of life but does not significantly reduce mortality compared to optimal medical therapy, making it a viable alternative for high-risk patients ineligible for surgery. This review underscores the role of advanced imaging techniques in myocardial viability assessment and emphasizes the importance of comprehensive risk stratification in guiding revascularization decisions. Special attention is given to managing high-risk patients unsuitable for CABG and the potential benefits of PCI in symptom relief despite uncertain survival benefits. A stepwise algorithm is proposed to assist clinicians in tailoring revascularization strategies, reinforcing the need for a multidisciplinary Heart Team approach to optimize outcomes.
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.