ReviewCureus2026
Assessment of the Effectiveness of Early Versus Delayed Invasive Strategies in Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, early invasive strategies for non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) have been increasingly studied as a means of promptly identifying and treating culprit coronary lesions. However, the optimal timing of invasive management remains uncertain, particularly because most available evidence is derived from developed or high-resource healthcare settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared early vs. delayed invasive strategies in adults with NSTEMI for major adverse cardiovascular events and key secondary outcomes. A Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome framework guided eligibility criteria, and relevant studies were identified through PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines were followed, and quantifiable outcomes were analyzed using RevMan v5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). Ten studies were included. Overall, five of 10 studies reported significant benefits favoring early or immediate invasive strategies, four found no significant benefit in adjusted or long-term analyses, and one reported increased adverse events with early intervention. Meta-analysis showed that early intervention significantly reduced all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-0.76, p < 0.00001) and rehospitalization due to heart failure (RR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.29-0.58, p < 0.0001). However, no significant benefit was observed for nonfatal acute myocardial infarction (RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.18-2.11, p = 0.45) or cardiovascular death at five years (RR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.66-1.48, p = 0.94). Early invasive intervention within 24 hours may improve selected NSTEMI outcomes, especially mortality and heart-failure rehospitalization. However, because the included studies were predominantly from developed countries, these findings may not be directly applicable to low-resource settings where catheterization facilities, specialists, and rapid referral systems are limited. Further evidence from low- and middle-income regions is needed.
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.