ArticleActa Cardiologica Sinica2022
Multivessel versus Culprit-Only Revascularization Strategies in Cardiac Arrest Survivors.
Article in Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Survivors Without ST-Segment Elevation had Lower Coronary Artery Stenosis in an Asian Population.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2025Article
- Chinese clinical practice consensus for device-supported treatment in adults with post-cardiac arrest syndrome (2024 Edition).World journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Impact of Postarrest Vasoactive-Inotropic Score on Acute Kidney Injury in Cardiac Arrest Survivors: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Complete Revascularization and One-Year Survival with Good Neurological Outcome in Patients Resuscitated from an Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Whether multivessel revascularization or culprit-only revascularization is more beneficial in cardiac arrest survivors with multivessel coronary artery disease remains unclear. We aimed to retrospectively evaluate whether multivessel or culprit-only revascularization following cardiac arrest was associated with a reduced incidence of in-hospital mortality. Methods: A total of 273 adult nontraumatic cardiac arrest survivors (aged ≥ 18 years) who underwent emergent coronary angiography (CAG) within 24 h following cardiac arrest were retrospectively recruited from three hospitals. Patients without definite coronary artery stenosis (n = 72), one-vessel stenosis (n = 74), or failed percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; n = 37) were excluded. A total of 90 patients were enrolled for the final analysis and classified into multivessel (revascularization of more than one major vessel during the index CAG; n = 45) and culprit-only (revascularization of the infarct-related artery alone; n = 45) groups. Results: Twenty-five patients (55.6%) in the culprit-only group and 17 patients (37.8%) in the multivessel group failed to survive to discharge [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.24-0.95, p = 0.035]. The benefit of multivessel revascularization on survival was obvious among those with a prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation duration (> 10 min) (47.82% vs. 76.92%, adjusted HR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.08-0.93, p = 0.03). No difference in neurological outcomes (favorable = cerebral performance category scores 1-2; poor = 3-5) between groups was observed (60.0% vs. 55.6%, adjusted OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.35-4.26, p = 0.753). Conclusions: Compared with culprit-only revascularization, multivessel revascularization was associated with lower in-hospital mortality among cardiac arrest survivors with multivessel lesions. Owing to the retrospective design and small sample size, the current study should be interpreted as observational and exploratory.
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.