ArticleWorld journal of cardiology2025
Outcomes of patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by a prolonged "Deferred" percutaneous coronary intervention strategy.
Article in World journal of cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of no-reflow phenomenon in patients with ST-segment- elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary PCI vs. pharmaco-invasive strategy: a single-centre study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Identification and Management Strategies for Intracoronary High Thrombus Burden in Patients With STEMI: A Practical Experience and Literature Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred treatment for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, in patients with high thrombus burden, immediate stenting during PCI can lead to poor outcomes due to the risk of thrombus migration and subsequent microvascular occlusion, resulting in no-reflow phenomena. Deferred stenting offers a potential advantage by allowing for the reduction of thrombus load, which may help to minimize the incidence of slow-flow and no-reflow complications. This study explores the effectiveness of a deferred stenting strategy in improving outcomes for STEMI patients.
aimTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of deferred PCI in a real-world setting in acute STEMI patients.
methodsThis study was conducted at King George's Medical University, Lucknow, from October 1, 2018, to October 30, 2019 and included a total of 55 participants. Patients with acute STEMI who underwent coronary angiography were selected for a deferred PCI strategy based on specific angiographic features.
resultsAnterior wall myocardial infarction was the predominant type of STEMI in 62% of the selected 55 patients (mean age: 54 years; 70% males), and diabetes mellitus was the most common risk factor (18.2%), followed by hypertension (16.2%). On the second angiogram of these patients measures of thrombus grade, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade, myocardial blush grade, and severity of stenosis of culprit lesion were considerably improved compared to the first angiogram, and the average culprit artery diameter had increased by 7.8%. Most patients (60%) had an uneventful hospital stay during the second angiogram and an uneventful intraprocedural course (85.19%), with slow-flow/no-reflow occurring only in 7.4% of the patients; these patients recovered after taking vasodilator drugs. In 29.3% of patients, the culprit artery was recanalized, preventing unnecessary stent deployment.
conclusionDeferred PCI strategy is safe and reduces the thrombus burden, improves thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow, improves myocardial blush grade, and prevents unwarranted stent deployment.
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.