Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34631826›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2021

Comparative Effectiveness of Complete Revascularization Strategies in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

Lingyue Zhao, Wenqin Guo, Weichao Huang, Lili Wang, Fanrui Mo, Xiehui Chen, Chaoyang Li, Siquan Huang

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Lingyue ZhaoHuazhong University of Science and Technology Union Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Wenqin GuoDepartment of Cardiology, Fuwai Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shenzhen, China.
Weichao HuangDepartment of Cardiology, Fuwai Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shenzhen, China.
Lili WangDepartment of Cardiology, Fuwai Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shenzhen, China.
Fanrui MoDepartment of Cardiology, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Liuzhou, China.
Xiehui ChenDepartment of Cardiology, Shenzhen Longhua District Central Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Chaoyang LiHuazhong University of Science and Technology Union Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Siquan HuangPeople's Hospital of Longhua District, Shenzhen, China.
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNHuazhong University of Science and Technology · CNFourth Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University · CNLonggang Central Hospital · CNShenZhen People’s Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) should be available for revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) is controversial. We aimed to compare the efficacy of various complete revascularization (CR) regimens for STEMI patients with MVD. The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases and clinicaltrial.gov were searched for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the FFR-guided CR, angiography-guided CR, and culprit-only revascularization (COR) strategies in STEMI patients with MVD. A Bayesian random-effect model was employed to synthesize the evidence in network meta-analysis. We used relative risk (RR) and 95% credible interval (CrI) as measures of effect size. The primary endpoint was the composite outcome of all-cause mortality or myocardial infarction (MI). Twelve RCTs were included. Angiography-guided CR showed a lower event rate of the composite outcome (RR, 0.68; 95%CrI, 0.50-0.87), all-cause mortality (RR, 0.75; 95%CrI, 0.55-0.96), MI (RR, 0.63; 95%CrI, 0.43-0.86), and repeat revascularization (RR, 0.36; 95% CrI, 0.24-0.55) compared with COR. Additionally, angiography-guided CR had a lower risk of primary outcome (RR, 0.64; 95%CrI, 0.38-0.94) and MI (RR, 0.58; 95%CrI, 0.31-0.92) than FFR-guided CR. The difference between the FFR-guided CR and COR in terms of composite outcome, all-cause mortality, and MI was similar. Angiography-guided CR was associated with the highest probability of optimal treatment for the primary outcome (98.5%), followed by FFR-guided CR (1.2%) and COR (0.3%). STEMI patients with MVD benefitted more from angiography-guided CR than from FFR-guided CR. However, only one study compared the effectiveness of FFR-guided and angiography-guided PCI; thus, the comparison between FFR-guided and angiography-guided PCI relied on indirect evidence. Therefore, further studies directly comparing the effectiveness of these two CR strategies are warranted.

Indexed as

complete revascularizationmeta-analysismultivessel diseaserandomized controlled trialsST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Identifiers

PMID34631826
PMCPMC8496298
OpenAlexW3200716490

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.