ArticleJournal of geriatric cardiology : JGC2015
Culprit vessel only versus "one-week" staged percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel disease in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.
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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Thirty-day outcomes of in-hospital multi-vessel versus culprit-only revascularization strategy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel coronary disease.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2023Article
- Reperfusion strategies in acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2017Review
- Staged versus "one-time" multivessel intervention in elderly patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the impact of a "one-week" staged multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus culprit-only PCI on deaths and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 447 patients with multivessel disease who experienced a ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) within 12 h before undergoing PCI between July 26, 2008 and September 25, 2011. After completion of PCI in the infarct artery, 201 patients still in the hospital agreed to undergo PCI in non-infarct arteries with more than 70% stenosis for a "one-week" staged multivessel PCI. A total of 246 patients only received intervention for the culprit vessel. Follow-up ended on September 9, 2014. This study examined the differences in deaths from any cause (i.e., cardiac and noncardiac) and MACE between the two treatment groups.
resultsCompared to a culprit-only PCI treatment approach, the "one-week" staged multivessel PCI was strongly associated with greater benefits for 55-month all cause death [41 (16.7%) vs.13 (6.5%), P = 0.004] and MACE [82 (33.3%) vs. 40 (19.9%), P = 0.002] rates. In addition, there were significant differences in the number of myocardial infarctions [43 (17.5%) vs. 20 (10.0%), P = 0.023], coronary-artery bypass grafting [CABG; 20 (8.1%) vs. 6 (3.0%), P = 0.021], and PCI [31 (12.6%) vs. 12 (6.0%), P = 0.018]. Patients undergoing culprit-only PCI compared to "one-week" PCI had the same number of stent thrombosis events [7 (2.8%) vs. 3 (1.5%), P = 0.522].
conclusionsCompared to a culprit-only PCI treatment approach, "one-week" staged multi-vessel PCI was a safe and effective selection for STEMI and multi-vessel PCI.
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.