SynthesisPloS one2014
Culprit vessel only versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multivessel vs. Culprit Vessel-Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pre-Procedural Use of Levosimendan in High-Risk ACS-PCI Patients with Reduced Left Ventricle Ejection Fraction-Short-Term Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Complete Revascularization Versus Treatment of the Culprit Artery Only in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Multicenter Registry.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2020Article
- A score for decision making during percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2019Article
- Reperfusion strategies in acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2017Review
- Revascularization Strategies in STEMI with Multivessel Disease: Deciding on Culprit Versus Complete-Ad Hoc or Staged.Current cardiology reports · 2017Review
- Revascularization strategies in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease: urgent or staged?Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2017Article
- Complete Treatment Versus Residual Lesion - Long-Term Evolution After Acute Coronary Syndrome.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2016Observational
- The simpler, the better: culprit-only intervention is beneficial in patients with chronic kidney disease with concurrent acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe best strategy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease (MVD), who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the acute phase, is not well established.
objectivesOur goal was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (culprit PCI) with multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) for treatment of patients with STEMI and MVD.
methodsPubmed, Elsevier, Embase, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were systematically searched for randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing culprit PCI and MV-PCI strategies during the index procedure. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.1 (Cochrane Center, Denmark).
resultsFour randomized and fourteen nonrandomized studies involving 39,390 patients were included. MV-PCI strategy is associated with an increased short-term mortality (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.77, p = 0.002), long-term mortality (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.74, p<0.001), and risk of renal dysfunction (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.97, p = 0.03) compared with culprit PCI strategy, while it reduced the incidence of revascularization (OR: 2.65, 95% CI: 1.80 to 3.90, p<0.001).
conclusionsThis meta-analysis supports current guidelines which indicate that the non-culprit vessel should not be treated during the index procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.