Observational studyDeutsches Arzteblatt international2026
Assessment of Indications for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Multicenter Analysis after the Diagnosis of Chronic Coronary Syndrome.
Observational study in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2026. 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
backgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is performed 300 000 times a year in Germany. Half of these procedures involve patients with chronic coronary syndrome. Little information is available on the quality of decision-making about the indication for PCI in this patient group.
methodsThe Center for Health Services Research of the German Cardiac Society (
results441 assessment forms from 16 hospitals were included in the study. More than half of the patients (52.2%) had typical chest pain, 20.1% had mainly dyspnea, 17.7% had chest pain and dyspnea, and 10% had no symptoms. Three-quarters had symptoms or ischemia despite optimal drug treatment. Most patients were treated for clinical symptoms and proven ischemia or stenosis of more than 90%. In 11% of patients, the indication was complete revascularization as a staged procedure after a prior myocardial infarction treated with PCI. 73.7% of indications for PCI were judged to be in adherence to the guidelines; guideline adherence was judged to be questionable in 24.1% and to be absent in 2.2%.
conclusionThese data on the quality of indications for elective PCI reveal a need for improvement in adherence to the recommendations of the current German and international guidelines. In particular, the non-invasive or invasive proof of ischemia should be performed more frequently. These findings underscore the importance of peer review of indications for interventional procedures.
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.