ReviewKorean circulation journal2026
Korean Society of Interventional Cardiology Expert Consensus for the Management of Chronic Coronary Syndrome: Part 2.
Review in Korean circulation journal, 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
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Revascularization remains an important component of chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) management, particularly in patients with high-risk coronary anatomy, impaired left ventricular (LV) function, or persistent symptoms despite guideline-directed medical therapy. Evidence indicates that prognostic benefit is most pronounced in patients with left main disease, multivessel disease, proximal left anterior descending artery involvement, and severe LV systolic dysfunction. In other patients, revascularization primarily improves angina symptoms and quality of life. The choice between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting should be individualized according to coronary anatomy, clinical risk, comorbidities, and the likelihood of complete revascularization. Contemporary PCI increasingly incorporates coronary physiology and intravascular imaging to refine lesion selection and improve procedural outcomes. Long-term CCS management requires structured follow-up to detect disease progression, recurrent ischemia, revascularization failure, and cardiovascular complications. Routine surveillance testing is not recommended in asymptomatic patients after PCI. Instead, follow-up should be tailored to patient risk and clinical status. When complete revascularization fails, mechanisms such as stent thrombosis, in-stent restenosis, graft failure, and progression of untreated coronary disease should be identified; intravascular imaging has an important role in guiding repeat revascularization. Comprehensive CCS management should also address complications, including heart failure, ventricular arrhythmias, and secondary valvular disease, through a multidisciplinary, patient-centered approach.
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.