ArticleInternal medicine (Tokyo, Japan)2025
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Early and Delayed Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for the Culprit Lesion in Patients with Non-ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.
Article in Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
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
Objective Immediate primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is closely associated with better clinical outcomes. However, the optimal timing of PCI for the culprit lesion in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is not fully understood. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between patients with early and delayed PCI and to investigate whether early PCI within 24 hours of admission can improve long-term clinical outcomes in patients with NSTEMI. Methods This was a single-center, retrospective study. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which was defined as the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal MI, and re-admission for heart failure. Results We included 816 patients with NSTEMI and divided them into an early PCI group (n=446) and a delayed PCI group (n=370). The median follow-up period was 856 days. The median age was lower in the early PCI group [73 (65-79) years] than in the delayed PCI group [76 (69-81)] (p<0.001). Shock at admission was more frequently observed in the early PCI group (11.9%) than in the delayed PCI group (3.2%) (p=0.001). The incidence of MACE in the delayed PCI group (40.8%) was higher than that in the early PCI group (28.5%) (p<0.001). However, a multivariate Cox hazard analysis revealed that early PCI was not associated with MACE after controlling for multiple confounding factors (hazard ratio 1.005, 95% confidence interval 0.763-1.322, p=0.973). Conclusion The timing of PCI may not be important in hemodynamically stable patients with NSTEMI, as long as primary PCI is performed.
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.