Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29627944›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2018

Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in STEMI: a Contemporary Review.

Daniel Y Lu, Ming Zhong, Dmitriy N Feldman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
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

3 authors.

Daniel Y LuGreenberg Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, From Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital, 520 East 70th street, New York, NY, 10021, USA. dyl9002@nyp.org.
Ming ZhongGreenberg Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, From Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital, 520 East 70th street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Dmitriy N FeldmanGreenberg Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, From Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital, 520 East 70th street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewIn ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization of the culprit coronary vessel and restoration of coronary flow is the goal of the initial management. However, obstructive non-culprit disease is frequently concomitantly found during initial angiography and portends a poor prognosis. Management of non-culprit lesions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been the subject of extensive debate. This review will examine the currently available evidence, with a specific focus on randomized clinical trials performed to date. RECENT

findingsAlthough early observational data suggested better outcomes with culprit-only revascularization, more recent data from several randomized trials have suggested improved outcomes with complete multivessel revascularization, either during the index PCI procedure or as a staged procedure. Data from recent randomized controlled trials have suggested the superiority of complete or multivessel revascularization and have subsequently led to changes to the most recent iterations of STEMI guidelines. However, the optimal management and timing of revascularization of non-culprit lesions in STEMI remain controversial.

Indexed as

Coronary artery diseaseMyocardial infarctionSTEMIST-segment elevation

Identifiers

PMID29627944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.