ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Staged versus immediate complete revascularization for non-culprit arteries in acute myocardial infarction: a post-hoc analysis of FRAME-AMI.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- One-time versus staged multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Cardiology journal · 2026Pooled it
- Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Heterogeneous Syndrome with Evolving Management-A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives: The optimal timing for complete revascularization (CR) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) remain uncertain. Methods: This post-hoc analysis of the FRAME-AMI trial included AMI patients with MVD ( Results: The incidence of the primary endpoint was not significantly different in any of the AMI patients [12.7% [immediate CR] vs. 17.4% [staged CR], Conclusions: In this post-hoc analysis of the FRAME-AMI trial, no significant difference in clinical outcomes was observed between the immediate and staged CR strategies for AMI with MVD and the subgroups, such as STEMI or NSTEMI. However, the results should be interpreted carefully because of the many limitations, including a limited sample size and a lack of statistical power.
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.