SynthesisMedicine2025
Multivessel versus culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention in non-ST elevation myocardial infarction: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 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.
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
backgroundMultivessel disease is common in non-ST elevation myocardial infarction patients. However, whether multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention is superior to culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention is unknown.
methodsA meta-analysis was conducted including studies that compared multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) and culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention among non-ST elevation myocardial infarction patients. Relative risk (RR) for mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization and procedural complications was calculated using a random effects model. Seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis.
resultsThere was no difference in short-term outcomes for mortality (RR 0.917, 95% CI 0.613-1.371, P = .672), MI (RR 0.960, 95% CI 0.612-1.507, P = .861), and stent thrombosis (RR 1.338, 95% CI 0.655-2.733, P = .424). Long-term mortality and repeat revascularization was significantly lower in the MV-PCI group (RR 0.746, 95% CI 0.644-0.865, P < .001 and RR 0.775, 95% CI 0.629-0.954, P = .016), respectively.
conclusionNo significant difference was demonstrated between the 2 strategies in the short-term outcomes. However, long-term outcomes in the MV-PCI group were superior to culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in non-ST elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease. Long-term outcomes included mortality, repeat revascularization, stent thrombosis, and MI. However, randomized controlled trials are needed to compare the safety and efficacy of these 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.