ReviewJournal of cardiovascular and thoracic research2025
Ischaemic mitral regurgitation in coronary revascularization: A critical gap in surgical guidelines.
Review in Journal of cardiovascular and thoracic research, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) presents a clinical challenge amidst evolving treatment paradigms, particularly when accompanied by coronary artery disease (CAD). Controversies persist regarding the optimal surgical approach, resulting in a lack of definitive guidelines. A comprehensive review of seminal studies from 2000 to 2020 was conducted to elucidate the evolving discourse and treatment landscape for IMR. Studies encompassing varied interventions, including coronary revascularization and concomitant mitral valve procedures, were scrutinized to gauge their impact on patient outcomes. Early studies diverged in advocating for or against adjunct mitral valve intervention during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in IMR patients. Subsequent trials like the POINT and RIME trials highlighted benefits associated with concomitant mitral interventions. However, the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network (CTSN) trials raised concerns regarding adverse events and recurrence rates post-mitral repair.The ambiguity in guidelines for IMR management persists, leaving surgeons to navigate individualized treatment decisions. Recommendations from the American Heart Association (AHA) offer moderate support for mitral valve interventions, yet a clear consensus remains elusive. The necessity for refined guidelines reflecting current evidence is imperative to optimize outcomes in IMR 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.