ReviewPostepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology2024
Efficacy and safety of different revascularization strategies in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology, 2024. 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.
- Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Heterogeneous Syndrome with Evolving Management-A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Female sex as a possible factor associated with favorable long-term outcomes in off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2026Article
- The Irreversible March of Time: Ischemic Delay and Impact on Outcomes in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Pre-Procedural Use of Levosimendan in High-Risk ACS-PCI Patients with Reduced Left Ventricle Ejection Fraction-Short-Term Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The optimal timing of revascularization in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) with multivessel disease (MVD) remains controversial. Aim: We investigated the impact of different revascularization strategies on clinical outcomes to assess the optimal revascularization strategy for these patients. Methods: We performed a network meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing revascularization strategies in NSTEMI with MVD. Effect sizes were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) using a random-effects model. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality and the primary safety outcome was recurrent myocardial infarction. Results: Eight eligible studies involving 34,151 patients receiving four revascularization strategies were analyzed. Compared to conventional culprit-only revascularization (COR), planned complete multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention during a second hospitalization (MV-PCI) reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (MV-PCI vs. COR: OR = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.38-0.74) and decreased all-cause mortality (MV-PCI vs. COR: OR = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.30-0.93) and the likelihood of repeat revascularization (MV-PCI vs. COR: OR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.37-0.82). However, compared to COR, immediate complete revascularization (ICR) but not MV-PCI was associated with reduced risk of recurrent MI (COR vs. ICR: OR = 1.39; 95% CI: 1.07-1.81; MV-PCI vs. COR: OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.40-1.01). Compared to MV-PCI: COR and staged complete revascularization during index PCI (SCR) increased the risk of cardiovascular mortality (MV-PCI vs. COR: OR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.34-0.70; MV-PCI vs. SCR: OR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.40-0.96). COR also had significantly higher cardiovascular mortality compared to ICR (COR vs. ICR: OR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.02-1.85). Conclusions: Complete revascularization is more effective compared to culprit-only revascularization for most follow-ups.
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.