SynthesisJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2025
Complete revascularization versus culprit-only revascularization in older adults with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of complete revascularization (CR) versus culprit-only revascularization (COR) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have shifted the recommendation for CR from class III to class I in the AHA/ACC/SCAI guidelines, but it remains unclear if the benefit of CR over COR extends to older adults, who have greater bleeding risk, comorbidity burden, and complexity of lesions. We performed a meta-analysis to place the results of the previous RCTs in the context of the recently published FIRE trial and the subgroup analysis of the COMPLETE trial in adults ≥75 years old.
methodsWe searched the literature from inception to October 21, 2023. RCTs of CR versus COR in STEMI were selected if it reported results for older adults, defined as either age > 65 years or > 75 years. Integrated hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using random effects models. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes were major bleeding and contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI).
resultsIn this meta-analysis of 5 RCTs including 3513 older adults, CR was associated with a lower hazard of MACE than COR (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.99, p = 0.047). Sensitivity analysis including trials that defined older adults as age > 65 years resulted in a lower hazard of MACE with CR versus COR, but not in trials that defined older adults as age > 75 years. There was no difference in the hazard of major bleeding or CA-AKI between CR and COR.
conclusionsIn this largest meta-analysis to date investigating CR compared with COR in older adults with STEMI, CR was associated with reduced MACE without a concomitant increase in major bleeding or CA-AKI compared with COR. These results can help cardiologists and geriatricians involved in shared decision-making with patients and caregivers when contemplating whether to pursue CR in older adults.
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.