SynthesisClinical cardiology2014
Outcomes associated with fractional flow-guided revascularization: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical cardiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Culprit vessel only vs immediate complete revascularization in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical cardiology · 2014Pooled it
- The Impact of Fractional Flow Reserve on Revascularization.Cardiology and therapy · 2015Article
- Fractional flow reserve: Current applications and overview of the available data.World journal of clinical cases · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeferral of revascularization for abnormal but nonischemic lesions is usually recommended; however, the long-term outcome of this approach is not well known. HYPOTHESIS: Deferral of nonischemic lesions will be associated with a low frequency of adverse events.
methodsA PubMed search of the MEDLINE database identified studies that reported clinical outcomes among patients who had fractional flow reserve-guided revascularization. We further categorized studies into 2 subgroups: left main and non-left main coronary artery lesions. Baseline demographics and clinical outcome data were extracted by 3 independent reviewers. Fixed and random effects summary risk ratios were constructed using Mantel-Haenszel and DerSimonian-Laird models, respectively. The primary outcome was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization.
resultsFrom 741 potential studies, 17 were included in the meta-analysis (n = 2975 participants), 8 in the left main subgroup (n = 595) and 9 studies (n = 2380) in non-left main subgroup. In the left main subgroup, the incidence of the composite outcome was 15.3% in the no-ischemia/deferral group vs 14.3% in the ischemia/revascularization group (risk ratio [RR] = 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.68, P = 0.54, I(2) = 3.7%). In the non-left main subgroup, the incidence of the composite outcome was 9.2% in the no-ischemia/deferral group vs 18.8% in the ischemia/revascularization group (RR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.34-0.52, P < 0.0001, I(2) = 20.7%).
conclusionsPatients with left main coronary disease had a relatively high incidence of adverse cardiovascular events, which was similar in both the deferral and revascularization groups. In patients with non-left main disease, ischemia was associated with worse outcomes despite revascularization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.