ArticleCirculation reports2026
Temporal Trends in Culprit- and Non-Culprit Lesion-Attributed Revascularization After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the Mie ACS Registry.
Article in Circulation reports, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recurrent ischemic events after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) may arise from treated culprit lesions (CLs) or untreated non-CLs (NCLs). However, temporal trends in CL- and NCL-attributed revascularization in contemporary clinical practice remain unclear. Methods and Results: We analyzed data from the Mie ACS Registry, a multicenter registry enrolling patients with AMI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting were excluded. The coprimary endpoints were the times to the first CL- and NCL-attributed revascularization over a 2-year follow-up period. Death was treated as a competing event. Temporal trends and predictors were evaluated using competing-risk analyses. Among 6,363 patients, 2,860 were enrolled in 2013-2017 and 3,503 were enrolled in 2018-2022. The cumulative incidence of CL-attributed revascularization was significantly lower in the later era (6.2% vs. 3.5%; P<0.001), whereas NCL-attributed revascularization showed only modest temporal improvement from 2013-2017 to 2018-2022 (6.6% vs. 5.5%, respectively; P=0.091). In multivariable analyses, late-era (2018-2022) enrollment was independently associated with a lower risk of CL-attributed revascularization (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.71; P<0.001), whereas multivessel disease was the strongest predictor of NCL-attributed revascularization (sHR 2.31; 95% CI 1.84-2.91; P<0.001). Conclusions: Despite temporal reductions in CL-attributed revascularization, NCL-attributed events remained relatively unchanged. NCLs continue to represent an important source of residual coronary risk after AMI.
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.