ArticleCardiology journal2024
Complete revascularization based on angiography derived fractional flow reserve versus incomplete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.
Article in Cardiology journal, 2024. 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.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNearly half of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients present with significant multivessel coronary artery disease, they are at high risk of subsequent adverse events. Whether complete revascularization guided by coronary angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (caFFR) further reduces such events risk is not fully investigated.
methodsIn this study, 367 consecutive STEMI patients who underwent successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were enrolled. caFFR of all three coronary vessels were measured, including 367 culprit vessels and 703 non-culprit vessels. Complete revascularization was defined as post-PCI caFFR > 0.8 of all three coronary vessels. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal recurrent myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization and non-fatal stroke/transient ischemic attacks) during follow-up.
resultsAt a median follow-up of 3.8 years, MACE had occurred in 39 patients of the 220 (17.7%) in the complete revascularization group as compared with 49 patients of the 131 (37.4%) in the incomplete revascularization group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-3.0; p = 0.005). The incomplete revascularization in culprit vessels evaluated by caFFR showed the highest risk for MACE occurrence.
conclusionsIn STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, incomplete revascularization based on caFFR might contribute to identifying patients at high-risk.
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.