ReviewInterventional cardiology (London, England)2025
Complete Revascularisation Following Acute MI: A Contemporary Review.
Review in Interventional cardiology (London, England), 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.
- Changes in Coronary Care for Acute Myocardial Infarction over the Past Two Decades (2000-2023) in Kaunas, Lithuania.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
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
Acute MI (AMI) is a leading cause of mortality globally. Swift diagnosis is imperative, with timely reperfusion crucial to minimise adverse outcomes. Revascularisation strategies include culprit-vessel-only therapy, staged complete revascularisation or immediate complete revascularisation. Evidence from randomised trials strongly favours complete revascularisation in ST-elevation MI (STEMI). Data regarding immediate complete revascularisation compared to a staged approach are limited, with uncertainties regarding the advantages of physiology-guided treatment compared to angiographic assessment alone. Non-STEMI (NSTEMI) patients with multivessel disease are often complex and current guidelines offer limited recommendations for this patient group, emphasising the need for individualised treatment. Observational studies have sought to find the optimal approach, yet conflicting data prevails. Dedicated trials for this issue in NSTEMI patients are currently unavailable. To enhance the decision-making processes for patients with AMI, future trials should consider the inclusion of functional health status and health-related quality of life outcomes. The existing gaps in knowledge underscore the intricacies of managing AMI and the ongoing necessity for comprehensive research to refine treatment strategies.
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.