ReviewThe International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc2025
Circulatory Support for High-Risk Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Coronary Interventions: Where is the Evidence?
Review in The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc, 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
Coronary artery disease remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy or other high-risk features undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) present significant perioperative challenges due to elevated procedural risks. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices such as the intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella devices, and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have increasingly been used to mitigate these risks. This review aims to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of temporary MCS in high-risk CABG and PCI, define high-risk patient populations, and compare device-specific benefits, risks, and clinical 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.