PMC:5848803 / 26458-27109 JSONTXT

{"project":"0_colil","denotations":[{"id":"28505298-25173601-5345","span":{"begin":269,"end":271},"obj":"25173601"},{"id":"28505298-26704310-5346","span":{"begin":582,"end":583},"obj":"26704310"}],"text":"The ESC/EACTS guidelines suggest that in view of the higher risk of procedural mortality with redo-CABG and the similar long-term outcome, percutaneous coronary intervention is the preferred revascularization strategy in CABG patients requiring redo revascularization [26]. The findings of our Matched Analysis B suggests an overall in-hospital mortality of 2.5% (0% for redo-OPCAB) and 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of 96, 88 and 71.6%, respectively. These remarkable results question the rationale of treating these patients with percutaneous coronary intervention stenting [5] and call for a more in-depth evaluation of the available evidence."}

{"project":"TEST0","denotations":[{"id":"28505298-236-242-5345","span":{"begin":269,"end":271},"obj":"[\"25173601\"]"},{"id":"28505298-125-130-5346","span":{"begin":582,"end":583},"obj":"[\"26704310\"]"}],"text":"The ESC/EACTS guidelines suggest that in view of the higher risk of procedural mortality with redo-CABG and the similar long-term outcome, percutaneous coronary intervention is the preferred revascularization strategy in CABG patients requiring redo revascularization [26]. The findings of our Matched Analysis B suggests an overall in-hospital mortality of 2.5% (0% for redo-OPCAB) and 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of 96, 88 and 71.6%, respectively. These remarkable results question the rationale of treating these patients with percutaneous coronary intervention stenting [5] and call for a more in-depth evaluation of the available evidence."}

{"project":"2_test","denotations":[{"id":"28505298-25173601-28903833","span":{"begin":269,"end":271},"obj":"25173601"},{"id":"28505298-26704310-28903834","span":{"begin":582,"end":583},"obj":"26704310"}],"text":"The ESC/EACTS guidelines suggest that in view of the higher risk of procedural mortality with redo-CABG and the similar long-term outcome, percutaneous coronary intervention is the preferred revascularization strategy in CABG patients requiring redo revascularization [26]. The findings of our Matched Analysis B suggests an overall in-hospital mortality of 2.5% (0% for redo-OPCAB) and 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of 96, 88 and 71.6%, respectively. These remarkable results question the rationale of treating these patients with percutaneous coronary intervention stenting [5] and call for a more in-depth evaluation of the available evidence."}

{"project":"MyTest","denotations":[{"id":"28505298-25173601-28903833","span":{"begin":269,"end":271},"obj":"25173601"},{"id":"28505298-26704310-28903834","span":{"begin":582,"end":583},"obj":"26704310"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"_base","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/testbase"},{"prefix":"UniProtKB","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/"},{"prefix":"uniprot","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/"}],"text":"The ESC/EACTS guidelines suggest that in view of the higher risk of procedural mortality with redo-CABG and the similar long-term outcome, percutaneous coronary intervention is the preferred revascularization strategy in CABG patients requiring redo revascularization [26]. The findings of our Matched Analysis B suggests an overall in-hospital mortality of 2.5% (0% for redo-OPCAB) and 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of 96, 88 and 71.6%, respectively. These remarkable results question the rationale of treating these patients with percutaneous coronary intervention stenting [5] and call for a more in-depth evaluation of the available evidence."}