SynthesisJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2025
Safety and efficacy of routine anticoagulation after primary PCI in STEMI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) is a widely used minimally invasive procedure that restores blood flow to the coronary artery, improving survival in STEMI patients. Despite its widespread application in clinical settings, the necessity and efficacy of postprocedural anticoagulation (PPAC) remain contentious. Our study aims to assess the outcomes of PPAC in STEMI patients who have undergone PCI. A comprehensive search of Embase, PubMed, and Clinicaltrials was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical outcomes between PPAC and control (placebo or no PPAC) for STEMI after primary PCI. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan version 5.4.1, employing a random-effects model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of Bias Assessment of the articles was assessed using RoB 2.0 software by the Cochrane Collaboration. A total of 5 RCTs comprising 13,586 patients were included, of which 6,829 patients (50.26%) received PPAC. Compared to the non-PPAC group, PPAC did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.84-1.39; P = 0.54, I
Indexed as
Identifiers
40544386What 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.