Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 493

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Stents versus Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

Open access
Seung, Ki Bae, Park, Duk-Woo, Kim, Young-Hak, Lee, Seung-Whan, Lee, Cheol Whan, Hong, Myeong-Ki, Park, Seong-Wook, Yun, Sung-Cheol, Gwon, Hyeon-Cheol, Jeong, Myung-Ho, Jang, Yangsoo, Kim, Hyo-Soo, Kim, Pum Joon, Seong, In-Whan, Park, Hun Sik, Ahn, Taehoon, Chae, In-Ho, Tahk, Seung-Jea, Chung, Wook-Sung, Park, Seung-Jung·2008·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several studies have compared the treatment effects of coronary stenting and coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, there are limited data regarding the long-term outcomes of these two interventions for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease. METHODS: We evaluated 1102 patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease who underwent stent implantation and 1138 patients who underwent CABG in Korea between January 2000 and June 2006. We compared adverse outcomes (death; a composite outcome of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or stroke; and target-vessel revascularization) with the use of propensity-score matching in the overall cohort and in separate subgroups according to type of stent. RESULTS: In the overall matched cohort, there was no significant difference between the stenting and CABG groups in the risk of death (hazard ratio for the stenting group, 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.80) or the risk of the composite outcome (hazard ratio for the stenting group, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.62). The rates of target-vessel revascularization were significantly higher in the group that received stents than in the group that underwent CABG (hazard ratio, 4.76; 95% CI, 2.80 to 8.11). Comparisons of the group that received bare-metal stents with the group that underwent CABG and of the group that received drug-eluting stents with the group that underwent CABG produced similar results, although there was a trend toward higher rates of death and the composite end point in the group that received drug-eluting stents. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease, we found no significant difference in rates of death or of the composite end point of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or stroke between patients receiving stents and those undergoing CABG. However, stenting, even with drug-eluting stents, was associated with higher rates of target-vessel revascularization than was CABG.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa0801441

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 20 references

Cited by

See all 493

Metadata

Authors
Seung, K. B., Park, D.-W., Kim, Y.-H., Lee, S.-W., Lee, C. W., Hong, M.-K., Park, S.-W., Yun, S.-C., Gwon, H.-C., Jeong, M.-H., Jang, Y., 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.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2008-04-24
Volume
358
Issue
17
Pages
1781-1792
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2102443541
Cited by
493
References
20
FWCI
78.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Stents versus Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa0801441
The paper
Seung, K. B., Park, D.-W., Kim, Y.-H., Lee, S.-W., Lee, C. W., Hong, M.-K., Park, S.-W., Yun, S.-C., Gwon, H.-C., Jeong, M.-H., Jang, Y., 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. (2008). Stents versus Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0801441

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.