Trial reportPloS one2024
In-hospital versus after-discharge complete revascularization in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. REVIVA-ST trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04743154 (In-hospital Versus After-discharge Complete Revascularization in STEMI Patients With Multivessel Disease.), which is not on this 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.
In-hospital Versus After-discharge Complete Revascularization in STEMI Patients With Multivessel Disease.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionComplete revascularization (CR) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD), is associated with a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). However, there is uncertainty about whether nonculprit-lesion revascularization should be performed, during index hospitalization or delayed, especially regarding health care resources utilization. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of in-hospital nonculprit-lesion revascularization vs. delayed (after discharge) revascularization on the length of index hospitalization.
methodsIn this single-center study, we randomly assigned patients with STEMI and MVD who underwent successful culprit-lesion PCI to a strategy of either CR during in-hospital admission or a delayed CR after discharge. The first primary endpoint was the length of hospital stay. The second endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or ischemia-driven revascularization at 12 months (MACE).
resultsFrom January 2018 to December 2022, we enrolled 258 patients (131 allocated to CR during in-hospital admission and 127 to an after-discharge CR). We found a significant reduction in the length of hospital stay in those assigned to after-discharge CR strategy [4 days (3-5) versus 7 days (5-9); p = 0.001]. At 12-month of follow-up, no differences were found in the occurrence of MACE, 7 (5.34%) patients in in-hospital CR and 4 (3.15%) in after-discharge CR strategy; (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.17 to 2.02; p = 0.397).
conclusionsIn STEMI patients with MVD, an after-discharge CR strategy reduces the length of index hospitalization without an increased risk of MACE after 12 months of follow-up.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04743154.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.