ReviewBiomedicines2026
Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Heterogeneous Syndrome with Evolving Management-A Narrative Review.
Review in Biomedicines, 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
Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) has become the predominant form of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and is frequently associated with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD). Patients presenting with NSTEMI and MVD represent a particularly high-risk population characterized by advanced age, comorbidities, and an increased atherosclerotic burden. Although advances in pharmacological therapy and early invasive management have improved prognosis, the optimal revascularization strategy in this setting remains uncertain. In contrast to ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), where randomized controlled trials consistently support complete revascularization, evidence in NSTEMI with MVD is limited and is largely derived from observational studies and registry data. This has generated ongoing debate regarding whether complete revascularization offers superior outcomes compared with culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and whether non-culprit lesions should be treated during the index procedure (immediate strategy) or in a staged manner. Current data suggest that complete PCI is generally associated with reduced recurrent ischemia, reinfarction, and repeat revascularization, with potential long-term survival benefits. However, patient comorbidities, lesion complexity, and procedural risk continue to influence outcomes, highlighting the importance of individualized decision-making. This narrative review synthesizes contemporary evidence on PCI-based revascularization strategies in NSTEMI with MVD, focusing on two central aspects: the extent of revascularization (complete versus incomplete) and the timing of intervention (single-stage versus staged). By integrating findings from registries, randomized trials and guideline recommendations, the review identifies areas of consensus, persisting uncertainties, and key evidence gaps. Ultimately, it underscores the need for large, dedicated trials to guide practice and optimize outcomes for NSTEMI patients with multivessel coronary disease.
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.