ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Comparison of complete vs. culprit-only revascularization in acute myocardial infarction.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe diagnosis and treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated with multivessel disease (MVD) by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been well recognized. However, the use of PCI in non-infarct-related coronary arteries remains controversial. We aimed to study the clinical outcome of complete vs. culprit-only revascularization for AMI with MVD before discharge.
methods173 AMI with MVD who received emergent PCI between January 2013 and December 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into complete revascularization (CR) group (n = 85) and culprit-only revascularization (COR) group (n = 88). Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE) at 1, 6, and 12 months after PCI were compared, including recurrent angina, recurrent MI, in-stent thrombosis, new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF), and worsen heart failure (HF).
resultsBaseline characteristics of two groups were comparable. There was no significantly statistical difference in MACCE between COR group and CR group, 36.2% vs. 33.3% (P = 0.715), 42.0% vs. 29.7% (p = 0.125) and 44.9% vs. 36.5% (p = 0.304) at 1-, 6- and 12-month follow up respectively. Compared with the CR group, a higher rate of recurrent angina was in COR group (20.3% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.007) at the 6th month. Subgroup analysis showed that hypertensive patients benefited more from complete revascularization at the 6- (OR:0.31, 95%CI: 0.13-0.76) and 12-month (OR:0.38, 95%CI: 0.16-0.90) follow up.
conclusionsComplete revascularization before discharge does not supply additional benefit on long time MACCE as compared with culprit-only intervention strategy in patients presenting with AMI for urgent PCI with multivessel disease.
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.