ArticleAsiaIntervention2024
OCT-based comparative evaluation of culprit lesion morphology in very young versus older adult patients with STEMI.
Article in AsiaIntervention, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intravascular imaging in myocardial infarction and ischemia with nonobstructive coronary arteries.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Myocardial Infarction in Young Adults: A Case Series and Comprehensive Review of Molecular and Clinical Mechanisms.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Myocardial Infarction in the Young: Aetiology, Emerging Risk Factors, and the Role of Novel Biomarkers.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
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
Background: The clinical and pathophysiological characteristics of coronary artery disease in very young adults are poorly described. Aims: Using optical coherence tomography (OCT), we compared culprit lesion morphology in very young adult patients (≤35 years) versus older adult patients (>60 years) with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Methods: Culprit lesion morphology was classified as plaque rupture, plaque erosion, or calcified nodule. Thrombus age was subclassified into acute (intraluminal thrombus with surface irregularity) or subacute (mostly mural thrombus with a smooth surface). Results: A total of 61 patients who underwent thrombolysis within 24 hours from symptom onset were included, with 38 (59.7%) subjects ≤35 years and 23 (40.3%) subjects >60 years of age. As an underlying mechanism of STEMI thrombosis, plaque erosion was more common in very young patients (52.6% vs 21.7%; p=0.02) while plaque rupture was more common in elderly patients (65.2% vs 36.8%; p=0.03). Acute or subacute thrombus was identified in 68.9% (42/61) of patients, with red thrombus being more frequent in very young patients. In the entire patient cohort, acute thrombus was more frequent in plaque rupture compared with plaque erosion (62.0% vs 28.0%; p=0.01), whereas subacute thrombus was more common in plaque erosion versus plaque rupture (52.0% vs 10.3%; p=0.0008). Conclusions: OCT showed that plaque erosion and plaque rupture were the most common underlying STEMI mechanisms in very young patients and older patients, respectively, and that subjects with plaque erosion had greater evidence of subacute thrombus.
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.