ReviewCurrent opinion in cardiology2025
Complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes presenting with multivessel disease.
Review in Current opinion in cardiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewComplete revascularization (CR) by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute coronary syndromes with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) was previously contraindicated in the absence of cardiogenic shock or high-risk ischemia. Over the last decade, CR has been a focus of recent clinical investigation and practice evolution due to high-quality evidence supporting hard cardiovascular outcome benefit, contributing to a reversal in international guidelines. This review provides concise syntheses of contemporary and emerging randomized evidence underpinning current strategies and unresolved questions regarding patient selection, timing of CR and guidance modalities for the identification and treatment of nonculprit lesions. RECENT
findingsThe randomized evidence base supporting CR with PCI for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and multivessel CAD has increased recently with large-scale trials comparing immediate versus staged CR and physiology-guided versus angiography-guided CR, including reports of longer-term comparative outcomes. Enough events have recently accrued to enable demonstration of all-cause mortality benefits with CR. SUMMARY: Contemporary randomized data increasingly support CR with PCI in haemodynamically stable patients. However, ACS type, timing of intervention and method of evaluation still necessitate individualized shared clinical decision-making, and further trials are required to validate the optimal PCI strategies by which to achieve CR in the correct populations.
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.