ArticleCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2017
Infarct related artery only versus complete revascularization in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multi vessel disease: a meta-analysis.
Article in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2017. 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Cold Adaptation on the State of Cardiovascular System and Cardiac Tolerance to Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury.Iranian biomedical journal · 2024Review
- Ferroptosis, a Regulated Form of Cell Death, as a Target for the Development of Novel Drugs Preventing Ischemia/Reperfusion of Cardiac Injury, Cardiomyopathy and Stress-Induced Cardiac Injury.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Regulation of autophagy of the heart in ischemia and reperfusion.Apoptosis : an international journal on programmed cell death · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association (ACCF/AHA) focused update on primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) only gives a class II b (weak) indication for non-infarct artery intervention at the time of primary PCI. Recent randomized controlled trials, however, suggest strong evidence supporting complete revascularization.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane central register for randomized controlled trials comparing complete versus infarct artery (IRA) only revascularization in patients with STEMI. A meta-analysis was performed using the data extracted from each study. Summary risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for five outcomes.
resultsSix trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria yielding 1,792 patients. Follow up ranged from 6 months to 2.5 years. The incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was significantly lower in the complete revascularization group compared to the IRA only revascularization (13.8%
conclusionsIn patients who present with STEMI, complete revascularization is associated with lower rates of MACE and cardiovascular deaths as compared to revascularization of the IRA alone. Even though the outcomes of all-cause mortality and nonfatal re-infarction rates were lower in the complete revascularization group, they were not significant.
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.