Cited by 18Cardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Angiographic evolution of coronary atherosclerosis in non-operated patients

VANHAECKE, J., PIESSENS, J., WERF, F. DE VAN, WILLEMS, J. L., GEEST, H. DE·1983·European Heart Journal

Abstract

Repeat coronary arteriography was performed in 100 patients with angiographically proven coronary artery disease, because of worsening symptoms (n = 67), persistent stable angina (n = 22) or other reasons (n = 11). The mean interval between the studies was 34.6 months (range 6-99). No patient had interim coronary artery bypass surgery. Progression of coronary artery disease was demonstrated in 60 patients and was correlated in bivariate analysis with the time interval between coronary arteriograms (P less than 0.0001) and with the interim clinical evolution (P less than 0.01). The incidence of progression was similar in the coronary arteries. Moderate lesions (40-70% narrowing) had the highest progression percentages. New significant lesions in previously normal arterial segments were rare. A multivariate analysis of 18 possible predictors revealed three independent variables correlated with progression of coronary artery disease: time interval (P less than 0.0001) and change in functional class (P less than 0.02) between coronary arteriograms, as well as the presence of clinical diabetes (P less than 0.03). Other risk factors and a change of individual risk factors between coronary arteriograms were not correlated with progression of coronary artery disease. Using the results of the multivariate analysis, the evolution of coronary artery disease was correctly predicted in only 72 patients. Following the repeat coronary arteriogram, coronary artery bypass surgery was proposed to 62 patients, 26 of whom needed more distal anastomoses for optimal myocardial revascularization. Because of the important therapeutic implications and the lack of reliable predictors, an aggressive follow-up of patients with known coronary artery disease seems warranted.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a061520

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 18

Metadata

Authors
VANHAECKE, J., PIESSENS, J., WERF, F. D. V., WILLEMS, J. L., & GEEST, H. D.
Affiliations
KU Leuven (BE)
Corresponding author
VANHAECKE, J.
Venue
European Heart Journal
Published
1983-08
Volume
4
Issue
8
Pages
547-556
ISSN
  • 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-9645
OpenAlex
W2179042454
Cited by
18
References
0
FWCI
0.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Heart Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Keywords
coronary artery disease progression, stable angina, diabetes mellitus, predictors of disease progression, coronary artery bypass grafting, coronary revascularization
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cholesterol, Cineangiography, Coronary Disease, Electrocardiography, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Risk, Time Factors, Coronary Angiography, Diabetes Complications

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