Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26089843›Full record

ArticleJournal of geriatric cardiology : JGC2015

Comparison of clinical outcomes between culprit vessel only and multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel coronary diseases.

Kwang Sun Ryu, Hyun Woo Park, Soo Ho Park, Ho Sun Shon, Keun Ho Ryu, Dong Gyu Lee, Mohamed Ea Bashir, Ju Hee Lee, Sang Min Kim, Sang Yeub Lee and 13 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Predictive value of CHADSBMC cardiovascular disorders · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in STEMI: a Contemporary Review.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kwang Sun RyuDatabase and Bioinformatics Laboratory, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Chungbuk, South Korea.
Hyun Woo ParkDatabase and Bioinformatics Laboratory, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Chungbuk, South Korea.
Soo Ho ParkDatabase and Bioinformatics Laboratory, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Chungbuk, South Korea.
Ho Sun ShonDatabase and Bioinformatics Laboratory, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Chungbuk, South Korea.
Keun Ho RyuDatabase and Bioinformatics Laboratory, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Chungbuk, South Korea.
Dong Gyu LeeHuman Genome Center, Institute of Medical Science, University of Tokyo, Minatoku, Tokyo, Japan.
Mohamed Ea BashirFaculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Medical Sciences and Technology, Khartoum, Sudan.
Ju Hee LeeRegional Cardiovascular Disease Center, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Cheongju, Chungbuk, South Korea.
Sang Min KimRegional Cardiovascular Disease Center, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Cheongju, Chungbuk, South Korea.
Sang Yeub LeeRegional Cardiovascular Disease Center, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Cheongju, Chungbuk, South Korea.
Jang Whan BaeRegional Cardiovascular Disease Center, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Cheongju, Chungbuk, South Korea ; Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Chungbuk, South Korea.
Kyung Kuk HwangRegional Cardiovascular Disease Center, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Cheongju, Chungbuk, South Korea ; Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Chungbuk, South Korea.
Dong Woon KimRegional Cardiovascular Disease Center, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Cheongju, Chungbuk, South Korea ; Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Chungbuk, South Korea.
Myeong Chan ChoRegional Cardiovascular Disease Center, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Cheongju, Chungbuk, South Korea ; Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Chungbuk, South Korea.
Young Keun AhnDepartment of Cardiology, Chonnam National University Hospital, Donggu, Gwangju, South Korea.
Myung Ho JeongDepartment of Cardiology, Chonnam National University Hospital, Donggu, Gwangju, South Korea.
Chong Jin KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Kyunghee University Gangdong Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
Jong Seon ParkDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yeungnam University Hospital, Medical Center, Daegu, South Korea.
Young Jo KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yeungnam University Hospital, Medical Center, Daegu, South Korea.
Yang Soo JangDivision of Cardiology, Yonsei University, Severance Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
Hyo Soo KimCardiovascular Center and Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
Ki Bae SeungDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Catholic University, St. Mary's Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
other Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry Investigators
Seoul National University Hospital · KRTokyo University of Science · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe clinical significance of complete revascularization for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients during admission is still debatable.

methodsA total of 1406 STEMI patients from the Korean Myocardial Infarction Registry with multivessel diseases without cardiogenic shock who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) were analyzed. We used propensity score matching (PSM) to control differences of baseline characteristics between culprit only intervention (CP) and multivessel percutaneous coronary interventions (MP), and between double vessel disease (DVD) and triple vessel disease (TVD). The major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was analyzed for one year after discharge.

resultsTVD patients showed higher incidence of MACE (14.2% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.01), any cause of revascularization (10.6% vs. 5.9%, P = 0.01), and repeated PCI (9.5% vs. 5.7%, P = 0.02), as compared to DVD patients during one year after discharge. MP reduced MACE effectively (7.3% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.03), as compared to CP for one year, but all cause of death (1.6% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.38), MI (0.4% vs. 0.8%, P = 1.00), and any cause of revascularization (5.3% vs. 9.7%, P = 0.09) were comparable in the two treatment groups.

conclusionsSTEMI patients with TVD showed higher rate of MACE, as compared to DVD. MP performed during PPCI or ad hoc during admission for STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock showed lower rate of MACE in this large scaled database. Therefore, MP could be considered as an effective treatment option for STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock.

Indexed as

Culprit only interventionMultivessel coronary diseaseMultivessel interventionMyocardial infarctionPrimary percutaneous coronary intervention

Identifiers

PMID26089843
PMCPMC4460162
OpenAlexW416619884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.