ArticleJACC. Asia2026
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Incomplete and Complete Revascularization in NSTEMI Patients With Multivessel Disease.
Article in JACC. Asia, 2026. 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.
- Complete Revascularization in NSTEMI and MVD: What Does "Complete" Mean in Real-World Practice?JACC. Asia · 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
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal revascularization strategy for patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and multivessel disease remains controversial.
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the 3-year clinical outcomes of incomplete revascularization (IR) vs complete revascularization (CR) in NSTEMI patients with multivessel disease.
methodsAmong 29,625 patients enrolled in the nationwide pooled registry of the KAMIR-NIH (Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institutes of Health) and KAMIR-V, 6,987 NSTEMI patients with multivessel disease who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention were analyzed. CR was defined as residual stenosis <30% in all vessels ≥2.25 mm with TIMI flow grade 3. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events at 3 years, a composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction, unplanned repeat revascularization, and hospitalization for heart failure.
resultsOf 6,987 patients, 3,072 underwent CR and 3,915 IR. The majority of patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for non-infarct-related artery during index procedure (6,144 of 6,987; 88.0%). CR was associated with a lower 3-year risk of major adverse cardiac events compared with IR (18.6% vs 26.9%; adjusted HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.66-0.85; P < 0.001), driven by reductions in cardiac death or recurrent myocardial infarction (6.9% vs 10.4%; adjusted HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.60-0.95; P = 0.015) and unplanned repeat revascularization (8.6% vs 13.1%; adjusted HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.56-0.82; P < 0.001). Findings were consistent after adjustment using propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting.
conclusionsIn NSTEMI patients with multivessel disease, CR was associated with significantly improved 3-year clinical outcomes compared with IR.
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.