Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,100Open textbooks2Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology107Genetics and Genomics95Neuroscience110Cardiovascular Medicine105Immunology90Pharmacology99Molecular Biology100Infectious Diseases102Rare and Inherited Diseases106Clinical Research98Anatomy and Physiology542Drugs and Chemicals546
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Cardiovascular Medicine›Coronary Disease
Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Coronary Disease

Cardiovascular Medicine · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-10-29 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed9 referencesApproximately 4 min read

An imbalance between myocardial functional requirements and the capacity of the coronary vessels to supply sufficient blood flow.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 3 complete abstracts (793 words), 9 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

An imbalance between myocardial functional requirements and the capacity of the coronary vessels to supply sufficient blood flow. It is a form of myocardial ischemia (insufficient blood supply to the heart muscle) caused by a decreased capacity of the coronary vessels.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Coronary Diseases; Disease, Coronary; Diseases, Coronary; Coronary Heart Disease; Coronary Heart Diseases; Disease, Coronary Heart; Diseases, Coronary Heart; Heart Disease, Coronary.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Myocardial Ischemia
Narrower topics
Coronary Aneurysm; Coronary Artery Disease; Coronary Occlusion; Coronary Stenosis; Coronary-Subclavian Steal Syndrome; Coronary Thrombosis; Coronary Vasospasm
See also
Coronary Artery Bypass; Myocardial Revascularization; Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary

Related concepts

  • Coronary Vessels
  • Myocardial Ischemia

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 250,540 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Coronary Disease” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 32,960 of them (13.2%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is through 1999 with 100,951 records.

Reviews account for 35,374 records (14.1%) and meta-analyses for 4,244. Randomized controlled trials number 11,357 (4.5%) as a share of all records on the topic.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 100,951 records; 2000-2009: 56,710 records; 2010-2019: 59,919 records; 2020 onward: 32,960 records100,951through 199956,7102000-200959,9192010-201932,9602020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 1999100,951
2000-200956,710
2010-201959,919
2020 onward32,960
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 14.1 percent; Meta-analyses: 1.7 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 4.5 percentReviews14.1% (35,374)Meta-analyses1.7% (4,244)Randomized controlled trials4.5% (11,357)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 250,540 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews35,37414.1%
Meta-analyses4,2441.7%
Randomized controlled trials11,3574.5%

Method: PubMed query "Coronary Disease"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.

Reading the evidence in cardiovascular medicine

Cardiovascular medicine has an unusually large body of randomized trials, so the type of outcome matters: hard clinical events such as death, heart attack and stroke carry more weight than changes in blood pressure, cholesterol or imaging markers that only predict risk. Observational studies can show associations but are confounded by age, lifestyle and other illness. Check whether a result is about prevention or treatment, the baseline risk of participants, and the absolute rather than only the relative size of any benefit.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Multicentre National Study
Gala D, Rao S, Gunani M, Shah K, Kulkarni AV, Wijarnpreecha K, et al.
2026Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
2cc by
PMID 42554421 · DOI · PMC13651923
Exercise After Coronary Stenting: Potential Effects on in-Stent Restenosis
Spadafora L, Cacciatore S, Salvi M, Russo F, Lo Sasso L, Lauretti A, et al.
2026Review article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
1cc by
PMID 42616220 · DOI · PMC13490258
Machine Learning Analysis of Sex Differences in Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Risk Factors and Prognosis Among Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Coronary Artery Calcification: Prospective Cohort Study
Ye Z, Xie E, Lin Z, Song C, Zhang R, Wang HY, et al.
2026Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
1cc by
PMID 42462211 · DOI · PMC13424754

Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Multicentre National Study [1]

Research article Gala D, Rao S, Gunani M, Shah K, Kulkarni AV, Wijarnpreecha K, et al. · · 2026 · cited 2 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundCoronary artery disease (CAD) is common in cirrhosis patients because of shared risk factors, including metabolic syndrome and alcohol use; however, outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain poorly defined.
Closing excerpt
Antiplatelet monotherapy after 30 days was associated with less bleeding and improved survival, supporting abbreviated DAPT in this high-risk group.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (165 words)

BackgroundCoronary artery disease (CAD) is common in cirrhosis patients because of shared risk factors, including metabolic syndrome and alcohol use; however, outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain poorly defined.AimsTo evaluate outcomes after PCI in patients with cirrhosis.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX US Collaborative Network data from 2015 to 2024. Adults undergoing PCI were stratified by cirrhosis status, with outcomes including gastrointestinal bleeding, ischaemic events, and all-cause mortality. Within the cirrhosis cohort, we evaluated effect modification by aetiology, disease severity, and antiplatelet strategy at 30 days after PCI. One-to-one propensity score matching adjusted for demographics and comorbidities, with results reported as relative risks and 95% confidence intervals.ResultsAmong 3351 patients with cirrhosis undergoing PCI matched 1:1 to controls, cirrhosis was associated with higher 1-year gastrointestinal bleeding (16.14% vs. 8.12%; p ConclusionCirrhosis confers substantially higher bleeding and mortality after PCI, particularly in decompensated disease. Antiplatelet monotherapy after 30 days was associated with less bleeding and improved survival, supporting abbreviated DAPT in this high-risk group.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42554421 · DOI · PMC13651923

Exercise After Coronary Stenting: Potential Effects on in-Stent Restenosis [2]

Review article Spadafora L, Cacciatore S, Salvi M, Russo F, Lo Sasso L, Lauretti A, et al. · · 2026 · cited 1 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Purpose of reviewStructured exercise is a cornerstone of secondary prevention after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), yet its specific relationship with in-stent restenosis (ISR) is less well characterized.
Closing excerpt
Larger, contemporary trials with standardized intracoronary imaging endpoints are needed to clarify whether, and in which patient subsets, exercise meaningfully affects the biology of ISR.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (225 words)

Purpose of reviewStructured exercise is a cornerstone of secondary prevention after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), yet its specific relationship with in-stent restenosis (ISR) is less well characterized. This narrative review summarizes the biological rationale, clinical evidence, safety, and practical prescription of exercise training in patients with coronary stents, with a focus on its potential impact on ISR.Recent findingsExercise training improves endothelial nitric oxide bioavailability, reduces systemic inflammation, and favorably modulates neointimal proliferation in experimental and clinical studies. Pooled clinical data suggest that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation after PCI is associated with a reduction in angiographically defined restenosis, although individual trials, largely from the bare-metal and early drug-eluting stent (DES) eras, have shown inconsistent results on binary restenosis endpoints. Available contemporary data do not suggest an excess risk of stent thrombosis, clinically relevant arrhythmias, or adverse ventricular remodeling when exercise is initiated in clinically stable patients using an individualized and supervised approach. The direct anti-restenotic effect of exercise remains biologically plausible and clinically suggestive but is not yet firmly established, particularly in the contemporary thin-strut DES era. Nevertheless, the well-documented benefits of exercise on functional capacity, endothelial health, and cardiovascular prognosis justify its role as an essential, time-sensitive component of post-PCI care. Larger, contemporary trials with standardized intracoronary imaging endpoints are needed to clarify whether, and in which patient subsets, exercise meaningfully affects the biology of ISR.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42616220 · DOI · PMC13490258

Machine Learning Analysis of Sex Differences in Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Risk Factors and Prognosis Among Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Coronary Artery Calcification: Prospective Cohort Study [3]

Research article Ye Z, Xie E, Lin Z, Song C, Zhang R, Wang HY, et al. · · 2026 · cited 1 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundPatients with coronary artery calcification exhibit notable sex differences in clinical presentation, particularly concerning the role of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) risk factors and their impact on prognoses.
Closing excerpt
The application of machine learning, particularly XGBoost, facilitates a deeper understanding of these disparities and provides a basis for personalized, sex-specific risk assessment and targeted interventions for patients with MSCAC.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (403 words)

BackgroundPatients with coronary artery calcification exhibit notable sex differences in clinical presentation, particularly concerning the role of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) risk factors and their impact on prognoses. However, the precise nature of these sex-specific differences remains incompletely understood.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate sex disparities in CKM risk factors among patients with moderate-to-severe coronary artery calcification (MSCAC) and elucidate their association with adverse clinical outcomes.MethodsA total of 2418 patients with MSCAC undergoing their first percutaneous coronary intervention were included. Hazard ratios (HRs) were computed to evaluate sex differences in the prognostic significance of various CKM risk factors, including chronic kidney disease (CKD), diabetes mellitus (DM), obesity, hypertension, and hypertriglyceridemia. Four machine learning models-logistic regression, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), random forest, and support vector machine-were constructed to predict adverse events. The best-performing model was interpreted using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) values to identify the relative importance of CKM risk factors and clarify potential sex disparities. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) were defined as all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned repeat revascularization.ResultsAmong the participants, 86.9% (2101/2418) had ≥1 CKM risk factor, while 3.1% (74/2418) had ≥4 risk factors. CKD was independently associated with the occurrence of MACEs in both female patients (HR 2.65, 95% CI 1.50-4.69) and male patients (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.02-2.60). Notably, the association was stronger in female patients, with a female-to-male multivariate-adjusted HR ratio for CKD of 1.68 (95% CI 1.04-2.97). DM was also associated with MACEs in both sexes, with adjusted HRs of 1.20 (95% CI 1.02-1.92) in female patients and 1.59 (95% CI 1.19-2.12) in male patients. Among the models evaluated, XGBoost demonstrated the highest predictive performance in the test set (area under the curve 0.92; average precision 0.92; F1-score=0.86). XGBoost maintained good predictive performance in the external validation cohort (area under the curve 0.86; average precision 0.71; F1-score=0.68). Baseline DM was identified as the CKM risk factor with the highest feature importance for MACEs, with SHAP values of 0.17 in female patients and 0.23 in male patients. Conversely, CKD emerged as the most important CKM risk factor in female patients (SHAP value 0.18), while DM ranked highest in male participants.ConclusionsThis study confirmed that CKM risk factors and their influence on prognosis in patients with MSCAC exhibit significant sex differences. The application of machine learning, particularly XGBoost, facilitates a deeper understanding of these disparities and provides a basis for personalized, sex-specific risk assessment and targeted interventions for patients with MSCAC.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42462211 · DOI · PMC13424754

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article The association of atherogenic index of plasma with cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis [4]
    Rabiee Rad M, Ghasempour Dabaghi G, Darouei B, Amani-Beni R · Cardiovasc Diabetol · 2024 · cited 95 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Atherogenic index of plasma and coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies [5]
    Assempoor R, Daneshvar MS, Taghvaei A, Abroy AS, Azimi A, Nelson JR, et al. · Cardiovasc Diabetol · 2025 · cited 77 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Clopidogrel versus aspirin for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis [6]
    Valgimigli M, Choi KH, Giacoppo D, Gragnano F, Kimura T, Watanabe H, et al. · Lancet · 2025 · cited 64 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Individual patient data meta-analysis of paclitaxel-coated balloons vs. drug-eluting stents for small-vessel coronary artery disease: the ANDROMEDA study [7]
    Fezzi S, Giacoppo D, Fahrni G, Latib A, Alfonso F, Colombo A, et al. · Eur Heart J · 2025 · cited 56 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Colchicine for secondary prevention of vascular events: a meta-analysis of trials [8]
    d'Entremont MA, Poorthuis MHF, Fiolet ATL, Amarenco P, Boczar KE, Buysschaert I, et al. · Eur Heart J · 2025 · cited 53 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation and Stable Coronary Disease: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials [9]
    Rashedi S, Keykhaei M, Sato A, Steg PG, Piazza G, Eikelboom JW, et al. · J Am Coll Cardiol · 2025 · cited 39 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Gala D, Rao S, Gunani M, Shah K, Kulkarni AV, Wijarnpreecha K, et al.. Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Multicentre National Study. . 2026. PMID 42554421 · DOI · PMC13651923
  2. Spadafora L, Cacciatore S, Salvi M, Russo F, Lo Sasso L, Lauretti A, et al.. Exercise After Coronary Stenting: Potential Effects on in-Stent Restenosis. . 2026. PMID 42616220 · DOI · PMC13490258
  3. Ye Z, Xie E, Lin Z, Song C, Zhang R, Wang HY, et al.. Machine Learning Analysis of Sex Differences in Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Risk Factors and Prognosis Among Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Coronary Artery Calcification: Prospective Cohort Study. . 2026. PMID 42462211 · DOI · PMC13424754
  4. Rabiee Rad M, Ghasempour Dabaghi G, Darouei B, Amani-Beni R. The association of atherogenic index of plasma with cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2024. PMID 38566139 · DOI · PMC10986012
  5. Assempoor R, Daneshvar MS, Taghvaei A, Abroy AS, Azimi A, Nelson JR, et al.. Atherogenic index of plasma and coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2025. PMID 39844262 · DOI · PMC11756160
  6. Valgimigli M, Choi KH, Giacoppo D, Gragnano F, Kimura T, Watanabe H, et al.. Clopidogrel versus aspirin for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Lancet. 2025. PMID 40902613 · DOI
  7. Fezzi S, Giacoppo D, Fahrni G, Latib A, Alfonso F, Colombo A, et al.. Individual patient data meta-analysis of paclitaxel-coated balloons vs. drug-eluting stents for small-vessel coronary artery disease: the ANDROMEDA study. Eur Heart J. 2025. PMID 39981922 · DOI
  8. d'Entremont MA, Poorthuis MHF, Fiolet ATL, Amarenco P, Boczar KE, Buysschaert I, et al.. Colchicine for secondary prevention of vascular events: a meta-analysis of trials. Eur Heart J. 2025. PMID 40314334 · DOI
  9. Rashedi S, Keykhaei M, Sato A, Steg PG, Piazza G, Eikelboom JW, et al.. Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation and Stable Coronary Disease: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2025. PMID 39918465 · DOI

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-10-29.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Acute Coronary SyndromeCardiovascular Medicine
  • Myocardial IschemiaCardiovascular Medicine
  • Coronary ThrombosisCardiovascular Medicine
  • Angina PectorisCardiovascular Medicine
  • Myocardial InfarctionCardiovascular Medicine
  • ST Elevation Myocardial InfarctionCardiovascular Medicine

All 105 articles in Cardiovascular Medicine →

At a glance

250,540
PubMed records on this heading
13%
published since 2020
35,374
review articles
11,357
randomized trials
9
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-29; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Acute Coronary SyndromeCardiovascular Medicine
  • Myocardial IschemiaCardiovascular Medicine
  • Coronary ThrombosisCardiovascular Medicine
  • Angina PectorisCardiovascular Medicine
  • Myocardial InfarctionCardiovascular Medicine

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Legal · Support