SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2026
Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Deferred and Performed Coronary Revascularization Based on Intracoronary Physiology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough large studies and pooled analyses of individual patient data have demonstrated the safety of deferring coronary revascularization based on a nonischemic intracoronary pressure index result, conflicting findings have emerged in specific patient subsets and with varying follow-up. Thus, we conducted an updated comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the cardiovascular outcomes associated with deferred or performed coronary revascularization based on intracoronary physiology.
methodsAvailable studies were identified through a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. Efficacy outcomes investigated were major adverse cardiovascular events, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, noncardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization.
resultsA total of 24 studies enrolling 24 285 patients were included in the meta-analysis. After a mean±SD follow-up of 2.6±1.6 years, patients undergoing physiology-guided deferred revascularization show consistently better outcomes than patients who underwent revascularization, including all-cause death (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.14 [95% CI, 1.00-1.30];
conclusionsPatients in whom revascularization was deferred based on intracoronary physiology show lower risk of adverse cardiovascular events compared with those who underwent revascularization. These findings suggest that pressure wire assessment has prognostic implications besides the indication for 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.