ReviewJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2025
Revascularization Strategies for Multivessel Disease in Acute Coronary Syndrome: Network Meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 2025. 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Staged Versus Immediate Complete Revascularization in Patients With STEMI and Multivessel Disease: An Updated Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials With Trial Sequential Analysis.Critical pathways in cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: Complete Revascularization at the Right Time.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- Smart Thrombosis Care: The Rise of Closed-Loop Diagnosis-to-Treatment Nano Systems.International journal of nanomedicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal revascularization strategy for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD) remains debated. This study compares the efficacy and safety of different revascularization strategies in these patients. Methods: We included 20 studies comparing staged, complete, and culprit-only (CO) revascularization strategies in patients with ACS and MVD. We divided the revascularization strategies into 3 distinct strategies: CO, complete index procedure (CIP), and complete staged procedure (CSP). We then compared CIP and CSP with CO. Outcomes studied are all-cause mortality, cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), need for revascularization, bleeding, contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), stroke, bleeding, and stent thrombosis. Results: Compared with the CO group, both the CIP group (relative risk [RR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.26-0.69; Conclusions: Our findings support complete revascularization (CIP or CSP) over CO for patients with ACS and MVD. Both CIP and CSP are associated with lower needs for future revascularization. CSP was associated with lower cardiac deaths. CIP was associated with fewer recurrent MI. Additionally, both strategies were safe with no differences noted in bleeding, CIN, stroke, and stent thrombosis.
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.