ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2020
Complete Revascularization Versus Treatment of the Culprit Artery Only in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Multicenter Registry.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of Revascularization Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock - Results from the Portuguese Registry on Acute Coronary Syndromes.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2021Article
- Is Complete Revascularization Truly Superior to Culprit-Lesion-Only PCI in Patients Presenting with ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issuedErratum.2020
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData on the management and prognosis of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease are limited in Brazil, showing that the available revascularization strategies should be investigated.
objectiveTo assess the outcomes of complete revascularization versus treatment of the culprit artery only in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease.
methodsA prospective cohort study was conducted at two medical centers in southern Brazil with a 1-year follow-up after the index procedure. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, or recurrent angina, while the secondary outcome was stroke, nonfatal cardiac arrest, major bleeding, or need for reintervention. The probability of outcomes occurring was compared between the groups using binary logistic regression. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsEighty-five patients were included. Their mean age was 62±12 years, and 61 (71.8%) were male. Fifty-eight (68.2%) were treated with complete revascularization and 27 (31.8%) with incomplete revascularization. The chance of both the primary and secondary outcomes occurring was significantly greater among patients treated with incomplete revascularization when compared to those treated with complete revascularization (odds ratio [OR] 5.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-16.1 vs. OR 5.2, 95% CI 1.2-22.9, respectively), as well as cardiac death (OR 6.4, 95% CI 1.2-35.3).
conclusionRegistry data from two centers in southern Brazil demonstrate that the complete revascularization strategy is associated with a significant reduction in primary and secondary outcomes in a 1-year follow-up when compared to the incomplete revascularization strategy (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 115(2):229-237).
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.