Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30196030›Full record

SynthesisCardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions2019

Network Meta-Analysis of Percutaneous Intervention-Based Revascularization Strategies for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Concomitant Multi-Vessel Disease.

Urooj Fatima, Safi U Khan, Olabisi Akanbi, Saket Girotra, Isaac Opoku-Asare

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Revascularization Strategies for Multivessel Disease in Acute Coronary Syndrome: Network Meta-analysis.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Urooj FatimaHoward University Hospital, United States of America. Electronic address: ufatima@huhosp.org.
Safi U KhanWest Virginia University, United States of America.
Olabisi AkanbiHoward University Hospital, United States of America.
Saket GirotraUniversity of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, United States of America.
Isaac Opoku-AsareHoward University Hospital, United States of America.

Funding

West Virginia IDEA-CTRU54GM104942 · NIGMS · WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY · PI JUDITH FEINBERG · 2012 to 2026
$81.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM104942
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and concomitant multi-vessel disease (MVD), primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit vessel is the preferred reperfusion strategy. However, optimum timing of revascularization for non-culprit artery is unclear. In this Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA), we compared different PCI-based revascularization strategies in STEMI patients with MVD.

methods11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (Inception to September 2017). For all outcomes, median estimate of odds ratio from posterior distribution with corresponding 95% credible interval was calculated. The Surface under the Cumulative Ranking Curve (SUCRA) metric was used to estimate the relative ranking probability of each intervention. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by excluding the RCTs in which the staged intervention was performed after two weeks of the index procedure or post discharge.

resultsIn this NMA of 3172 patients, CR-I (instant complete revascularization) was associated with 40% relative risk reduction in all-cause mortality compared with IRA (infarct related artery) [0.60 (0.31-0.89)]. CR-I was superior to CR-S (staged complete revascularization) [0.42 (0.22-0.70)] and IRA [0.50(0.29-0.72)] in reducing the risk of re- infarction. Both CR-I and CR-S significantly reduced the risk of repeat revascularization compared to IRA, whereas the risk of CIN (contrast induced nephropathy) and major bleeding was similar across all interventions. Sensitivity analysis showed, that CR-I was a better strategy compared with CR-S [0.34 (0.12-0.74)] and IRA (0.60 [0.36-0.97]) in reducing all-cause mortality.

conclusionsIn this NMA, CR-I was associated with reduction in all-cause mortality and re- infarction compared with IRA.

Indexed as

Percutaneous Coronary InterventionAgedCause of DeathCoronary Artery DiseaseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecurrenceRisk FactorsST Elevation Myocardial InfarctionTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeMulti-vessel diseaseRevascularizationSTEMI

Identifiers

PMID30196030
PMCPMC6426681

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.