ArticleEuropean heart journal2025
Coronary artery bypass grafting with or without preoperative physiological stenosis assessment: a SWEDEHEART study.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Limited performance questions retrospective use of quantitative flow ratio in coronary artery bypass grafting.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsPhysiological flow assessment of coronary stenoses, such as fractional flow reserve, are routinely used to guide percutaneous coronary intervention, but it has not been equally recognized to guide coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Mid-term outcomes in CABG patients with and without preoperative flow assessment were compared.
methodsAll patients with first-time isolated CABG in Sweden 2013-2020 were identified in the SWEDEHEART registry (n = 18 211), which also provided information on flow assessment. Data were linked with three mandatory national registries. Median follow-up was 3.6 years (range 0-7.5). Incidence of all-cause mortality, stroke, new myocardial infarction, new coronary angiography, and new revascularization was compared using adjusted Cox regression models. The proportional hazard assumption was violated for new angiography and revascularization. Hence, follow-up was divided into 0-2 and >2 years.
resultsOverall, 2869 patients (15.8%) had flow assessment before surgery, increasing from 7.1% in 2013% to 21.5% in 2020. Patients with flow assessment were younger, had a lower EuroSCORE II, and received fewer distal anastomoses (3.0 ± 0.9 vs 3.2 ± 1, P < .001). There were no associations between flow assessment and mortality, post-discharge myocardial infarction, or stroke. New angiography and new revascularization were not significantly different 0-2 years, but preoperative flow assessment was associated with a higher risk for new angiography [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.62, P = .008] and new revascularization (aHR 1.55, 95% CI 1.18-2.04, P = .002) >2 years after CABG.
conclusionsPreoperative flow assessment was not associated with improved clinical outcomes but with a higher risk for new angiography and new revascularization >2 years after CABG. The results suggest that the use of flow assessment with current cut-off levels may not be applicable in CABG, and further studies are needed.
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.