Trial reportIndian heart journal
Culprit vessel only versus complete revascularization following thrombolysis in patients with ST elevation myocardial infraction and multivessel coronary artery disease - A prospective study.
Trial report in Indian heart journal. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe present study compares the treatment outcomes of only culprit vessel PCI and complete revascularization in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease (MVD) following thrombolysis.
methodsThis was a single-center, prospective randomized study including a total of 108 patients presenting at a tertiary care center within 3-24 h post-thrombolysis and undergoing pharmacoinvasive PCI, and randomized into two groups: complete revascularization PCI group and culprit only PCI group. The primary outcomes were evaluated by cardiac mortality, repeat myocardial infarction (MI)/acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and refractory angina. The secondary outcomes include repeat revascularization and safety outcomes namely contrast induced nephropathy (CIN), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and major bleeding were compared among both the groups at one year follow-up.
resultsComplete revascularization PCI group and culprit only PCI group had 54 patients in each group. Left ventricular ejection fraction did not show significant difference at discharge (p = 1) but was significantly improved in complete revascularization PCI group (p = 0.001) at one year follow-up. Reduced number of outcomes with a significant difference in both the groups were seen for primary outcomes such as cardiac mortality (p = 0.01), repeat MI/ACS (p = 0.01) and refractory angina (p = 0.038) along with repeat revascularization (p = 0.001) at one year follow-up. Complete revascularization did not show any statistically significant difference for CIN (p = 0.567), CVA (p = 0.153) and major bleeding (p = 0.322) then culprit only revascularization group.
conclusionIn patients with STEMI and MVD, complete revascularization was found more favourable in terms of primary and secondary outcomes compared to culprit only revascularization.
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.