ArticleThe Korean journal of internal medicine2019
A score for decision making during percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease.
Article in The Korean journal of internal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThe optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with multivessel disease (MVD) is uncertain. This study was designed to develop a novel and simple tool for assessing an individualized and optimized PCI strategy in AMI patients with MVD.
methodsIn total, 5,025 patients with AMI from nine centers at two universities were enrolled in the prospective Convergent Registry of Catholic and Chonnam University for Acute Myocardial Infarction (COREA-AMI) registry from January 2004 through December 2009. From among them, we selected 2,630 patients with MVD who were treated by culprit-only or multivessel (MV) PCI. We investigated major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) during a 1-year clinical follow-up. Using a subgroup analysis, we extracted variables for use in the culprit only versus multivessel revascularization (CONVERSE) score, which showed a preference for MV PCI rather than culprit-only PCI for treating MVD.
resultsThe CONVERSE score was constructed using eight independent variables (1 point for each variable): age > 65 years, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, high Killip class (III or IV), low left ventricular ejection fraction (≤ 50%), low creatinine clearance (≤ 60 mL/min), high level of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (≥ 2.0 mg/L), and left anterior descending artery or left main as the nonculprit vessel. The incidence of MACEs increased linearly with the CONVERSE score. The receiver operating characteristic curve showed that the cutoff value was 3 points.
conclusionThe results suggest that patients with a CONVERSE score of 3 or more should undergo MV 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.