Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39470060›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2024

Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularization for Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Ayman Elbadawi, Mohamed Hamed, Mohamed Gad, Sheref A Elseidy, Mohamed Barghout, Hani Jneid, Mamas A Mamas, Fernando Alfonso, Islam Y Elgendy

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors.

Ayman ElbadawiDivision of Cardiology Christus Good Shepherd Medical Center Longview TX USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4248-781X
Mohamed HamedDivision of Cardiology Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton FL USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2010-0394
Mohamed GadDivision of Cardiology Baylor College of Medicine Houston TX USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0218-3317
Sheref A ElseidyCardiology Department Ain Shams University Cairo Egypt.ORCID 0000-0002-6069-3131
Mohamed BarghoutDivision of Cardiology Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute Providence RI USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0159-2584
Hani JneidDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston TX USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8754-358X
Mamas A MamasKeele Cardiovascular Research Group, Centre for Prognosis Research Keele University Keele United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9241-8890
Fernando AlfonsoCardiology Department Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, IIS-IP, CIBER-CV Madrid Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7480-2511
Islam Y ElgendyDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Gill Heart and Vascular Institute University of Kentucky Lexington 40536 KY USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9853-7591

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe comparative outcomes with immediate, staged in-hospital, and staged out-of-hospital complete revascularization for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease remain unclear. METHODS AND

resultsAn electronic search of MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases was performed through August 2023 for randomized trials evaluating immediate, staged in-hospital, and staged out-of-hospital complete revascularization for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). The final analysis included 9 trials with 4270 patients. The weighted follow-up duration was 13.8 months. On pairwise meta-analysis, there were no statistically significant differences between immediate versus staged nonculprit percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in MACEs (odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.54-1.16]). Network meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference in MACEs with staged in-hospital nonculprit PCI (odds ratio, 1.29-[95% CI, 0.91-1.82]) compared with immediate nonculprit PCI, while there were higher odds of MACEs with out-of-hospital nonculprit PCI (odds ratio, 1.67-[95% CI, 1.21-2.30]) compared with immediate nonculprit PCI. Compared with immediate nonculprit PCI, there were higher odds of ischemia-driven repeat revascularization with staged out-of-hospital nonculprit PCI (odds ratio, 2.26-[95% CI, 1.37-3.72]), but not with in-hospital staged nonculprit PCI. There were no significant differences for the other outcomes among the 3 strategies.

conclusionsAmong patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease, an immediate nonculprit PCI approach was associated with similar clinical outcomes to the staged nonculprit PCI approach. The staged out-of-hospital nonculprit PCI approach was associated with a higher incidence of MACEs compared with the other strategies, which was driven by higher risk for ischemia-driven repeat revascularization.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery DiseasePercutaneous Coronary InterventionST Elevation Myocardial InfarctionHumansMyocardial RevascularizationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsTime FactorsTime-to-TreatmentTreatment Outcomecomplete revascularizationimmediatemultivessel diseaseSTEMI

Identifiers

PMID39470060
PMCPMC11935666

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.