ArticleCJC open2025
Preferred Treatment and Expected Risk in Coronary Intervention Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease: Cardiologists' Views Versus Trials Data.
Article in CJC open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In aging Western populations, there is an increase in the prevalence of both coronary artery disease and peripheral arterial disease (PADs). Treatment of patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and have concomitant PADs may pose a challenge, but preferences of cardiologists regarding treatment and their views on complication risks are unknown. Methods: This work was a survey-based study comparing cardiologists' views with patient-level data of PCI trials (BIO-RESORT and BIONYX). Results: The survey was completed by 47 of 208 (23%) invited cardiologists. A growing prevalence of PADs was observed in the trials and by 50% of the respondents. Cardiologists estimated that 22% of current PCI patients had PADs, whereas this rate was 7.3% among 6002 all-comer patients. In PADs patients, PCI procedural complication rates were estimated to be higher, which was not observed in either trial. The estimated higher 3-year rates of bleeding, myocardial infarction, and cardiac death in PCI patients with PADs were corroborated by corresponding trial data ( Conclusions: Cardiologists correctly estimated the increase in PADs over time among PCI patients, but they overestimated the current prevalence. An increased risk of adverse clinical events after PCI was correctly recognized, and concomitant PADs often affected the preferred treatment. Notably, cardiologists held disparate views on optimal preferred coronary treatment, which may be attributed to the lack of reported data about this patient group. Thus, more clinical attention and research is warranted.
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.