SynthesisHerz2020
Optimal reperfusion strategy in patients with acute STEMI and multivessel disease-an updated meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Herz, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Safety and efficacy of intracoronary recombinant human prourokinase administration in patients with acute myocardial infarction and ST‑segment elevation: A meta‑analysis of randomized controlled trials.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of culprit-only revascularization (COR) and complete revascularization (CR) in the treatment of patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease to determine the optimal reperfusion strategy.
methodWe analyzed published multicenter randomized controlled trials to compare COR and CR in patients with acute STEMI and multivessel disease. The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ovid databases were searched, and the meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software.
resultsEight multicenter randomized controlled trials were selected involving 2870 patients, of whom 1604 underwent COR and 1266 underwent CR. No significant heterogeneity was identified across these selected studies. The CR strategy significantly decreased the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; odds ratio [OR]: 2.44, 95% CI [95% confidence interval]: 1.96-3.03, p < 0.001), mortality (OR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.25-2.47, p = 0.001), myocardial infarction (MI, OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.12-2.35, p = 0.01), and repeat revascularization (OR: 3.20, 95% CI: 2.41-4.24, p < 0.001) compared with the COR approach. Moreover, no significant difference was identified in the safety indexes, including contrast-induced nephropathy, stroke, and bleeding, between the CR and the COR group (p > 0.05).
conclusionThe present meta-analysis determined that CR is an efficacious and safe reperfusion strategy in patients with acute STEMI and multivessel disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29951946What 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.