ReviewEuropean cardiology2025
Left Main Disease: The Last Frontier for Medical Therapy in Stable Coronary Artery Disease?
Review in European cardiology, 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.
- Invasive and medical management approaches to non-acute myocardial ischaemic syndromes.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2026Review
- Advances in Functional Vascular Stents for Cardiovascular Therapy with Drug Delivery and Computational Design.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) involving ≥50% stenosis in the left main coronary artery almost invariably undergo revascularisation. However, there is lack of evidence from contemporary randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) supporting the superiority of this approach versus an initial strategy of intensive, multifaceted optimal medical therapy (OMT) directed at dyslipidaemic, hypertensive, thrombotic, metabolic and ischaemic targets. Current clinical practice guidelines still base their recommendations on small subsets of RCTs conducted in the 1970s and early 1980s. Given the lack of survival benefit among patients with stable, multi-vessel coronary artery disease who do versus those do not undergo routine revascularisation in the era of advanced OMT, the question arises whether the current treatment recommendations for left main disease are valid. This issue is of considerable importance; while significant left main disease is found in only 8-10% of diagnostic invasive angiography cases, it is a disease entity associated with a high risk of adverse clinical events and extensive resource use. This article discusses clinical trials data as well as challenges to address this question in the contemporary era. It highlights the complexities of trial planning and execution as it relates to both feasibility and equipoise, study design, choice of trial endpoints and duration of follow-up. The authors conclude there is a compelling need for an RCT to test the hypothesis that the current practice of routine revascularisation for all patients with LMD is superior to an initial strategy of multifaceted OMT with selective use of revascularisation.
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.