FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2113162806> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2113162806 endingPage "1078" @default.
• W2113162806 startingPage "1076" @default.
• W2113162806 abstract "We read the recent meta-analysis by Jang et al 1 Jang J.S. Choi K.N. Jin H.Y. Seo J.S. Yang T.H. Kim D.K. Kim D.S. Urm S.H. Chun J.H. Kang S.J. Park D.W. Lee S.W. Kim Y.H. Lee C.W. Park S.W. Park S.J. Meta-analysis of three randomized trials and nine observational studies comparing drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 2012; 110: 1411-1418 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (38) Google Scholar of 3 randomized trials 2 Boudriot E. Thiele H. Walther T. Liebetrau C. Boeckstegers P. Pohl T. Reichart B. Mudra H. Beier F. Gansera B. Neumann F.J. Gick M. Zietak T. Desch S. Schuler G. Mohr F.W. Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with sirolimus-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in unprotected left main stem stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 57: 538-545 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (321) Google Scholar , 3 Park S.J. Kim Y.H. Park D.W. Yun S.C. Ahn J.M. Song H.G. Lee J.Y. Kim W.J. Kang S.J. Lee S.W. Lee C.W. Park S.W. Chung C.H. Lee J.W. Lim D.S. Rha S.W. Lee S.G. Gwon H.C. Kim H.S. Chae I.H. Jang Y. Jeong M.H. Tahk S.J. Seung K.B. Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364: 1718-1727 Crossref PubMed Scopus (499) Google Scholar , 4 Kappetein A.P. Feldman T.E. Mack M.J. Morice M.C. Holmes D.R. Ståhle E. Dawkins K.D. Mohr F.W. Serruys P.W. Colombo A. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with drug-eluting stenting for the treatment of left main and/or three-vessel disease: 3-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. Eur Heart J. 2011; 32: 2125-2134 Crossref PubMed Scopus (455) Google Scholar and 9 observational studies (with 5,079 patients) comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. At 1-year follow-up, there were trends toward lower risk for death (odds ratio [OR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 1.02, p = 0.06) and the composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.00, p = 0.05) in the DES group compared to the CABG group. However, target vessel revascularization (TVR) was significantly higher in the DES group compared to the CABG group (OR 3.52, 95% CI 2.72 to 4.56, p <0.00001). The investigators concluded that PCI with DES was associated with favorable outcomes for mortality and the composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and with a higher risk for TVR compared to CABG in patients with ULMCA disease. However, the investigators abstracted unadjusted dichotomous data (events/total) in unmatched groups from observational studies except for the Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Surgical Revascularization (MAIN-COMPARE) study 5 Park D.W. Seung K.B. Kim Y.H. Lee J.Y. Kim W.J. Kang S.J. Lee S.W. Lee C.W. Park S.W. Yun S.C. Gwon H.C. Jeong M.H. Jang Y.S. Kim H.S. Kim P.J. Seong I.W. Park H.S. Ahn T. Chae I.H. Tahk S.J. Chung W.S. Park S.J. Long-term safety and efficacy of stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: 5-year results from the MAIN-COMPARE (Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Surgical Revascularization) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 56: 117-124 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (248) Google Scholar which consisted propensity score-matched groups. Unadjusted risk estimates in observational studies must be highly biased. Thus, extracting not “unadjusted” but “adjusted” risk estimates from observational studies, we performed an updated meta-analysis of PCI with DES versus CABG for the prevention of late death and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs; a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) in ULMCA disease. All analyses were conducted using Review Manager version 5.1 (Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark) and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2 (Biostat, Englewood, New Jersey). Meta-Analysis of Three Randomized Trials and Nine Observational Studies Comparing Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery DiseaseAmerican Journal of CardiologyVol. 110Issue 10PreviewClinical outcomes for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease between coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and drug-eluting stents (DESs) remain controversial. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using DESs with CABG in patients with ULMCA disease. Databases were searched for clinical studies that reported outcomes after PCI with DESs and CABG for treatment of ULMCA disease. End points of this meta-analysis were mortality; composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke; and target vessel revascularization at 1-year follow-up. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W2113162806 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2113162806 creator A5006435222 @default.
• W2113162806 creator A5050498443 @default.
• W2113162806 date "2013-04-01" @default.
• W2113162806 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2113162806 title "Alice in Wonderland of Drug-Eluting Stent for Unprotected Left Main Disease" @default.
• W2113162806 cites W109467277 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W1964435302 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W1969332032 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W1990032289 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W1991673818 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W2006663006 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W2013371222 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W2015473457 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W2024474312 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W2032472635 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W2033585778 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W2047659464 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W2049224396 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W2075039321 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W2093507839 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W2099734862 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W2105095045 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W2119162463 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W2140737062 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W2149692562 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W2153235730 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W2319787065 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W29888396 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W62288543 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W79829308 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W80935715 @default.
• W2113162806 cites W2513184592 @default.
• W2113162806 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.12.029" @default.
• W2113162806 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23498088" @default.
• W2113162806 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2113162806 type Work @default.
• W2113162806 sameAs 2113162806 @default.
• W2113162806 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2113162806 countsByYear W21131628062014 @default.
• W2113162806 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2113162806 hasAuthorship W2113162806A5006435222 @default.
• W2113162806 hasAuthorship W2113162806A5050498443 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConcept C15708023 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConcept C2776820930 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConcept C2778213512 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConcept C2780400711 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConcept C3017915907 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConcept C500558357 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConceptScore W2113162806C126322002 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConceptScore W2113162806C138885662 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConceptScore W2113162806C15708023 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConceptScore W2113162806C164705383 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConceptScore W2113162806C168563851 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConceptScore W2113162806C2776820930 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConceptScore W2113162806C2778213512 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConceptScore W2113162806C2780400711 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConceptScore W2113162806C3017915907 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConceptScore W2113162806C500558357 @default.
• W2113162806 hasConceptScore W2113162806C71924100 @default.
• W2113162806 hasIssue "7" @default.
• W2113162806 hasLocation W21131628061 @default.
• W2113162806 hasLocation W21131628062 @default.
• W2113162806 hasOpenAccess W2113162806 @default.
• W2113162806 hasPrimaryLocation W21131628061 @default.
• W2113162806 hasRelatedWork W2001708017 @default.
• W2113162806 hasRelatedWork W2080753067 @default.
• W2113162806 hasRelatedWork W2140675045 @default.
• W2113162806 hasRelatedWork W2392407047 @default.
• W2113162806 hasRelatedWork W2409255037 @default.
• W2113162806 hasRelatedWork W3113925325 @default.
• W2113162806 hasRelatedWork W4242622005 @default.
• W2113162806 hasRelatedWork W4256560215 @default.
• W2113162806 hasRelatedWork W4285337006 @default.
• W2113162806 hasRelatedWork W3031769266 @default.
• W2113162806 hasVolume "111" @default.
• W2113162806 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2113162806 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2113162806 magId "2113162806" @default.
• W2113162806 workType "article" @default.