SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Fractional flow reserve-guided complete vs. culprit-only revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease, whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) guided complete revascularization (CR) is superior to the now widely used culprit-only (COR) revascularization is unclear. Methods: We conducted a search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CNKI for randomized controlled trials comparing FFR-guided CR with COR in STEMI patients with multivessel disease. Data extraction and analysis adhered to Cochrane guidelines, with major adverse cardiac events as the primary outcome. Results: This meta-analysis included 6 trials involving 3,482 patients. FFR-guided CR was associated with a reduction in major adverse cardiac events (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.46-0.94, 95% PI: 0.20-2.19), ischemia-driven revascularization (RR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.19-0.40, 95% PI: 0.16-0.46), and repeat percutaneous coronary interventions (RR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.22-0.50, 95% PI: 0.16-0.78) compared to COR. However, no difference was observed in all-cause mortality (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.86-1.46, 95% PI: 0.79-1.58) or safety outcomes. Conclusion: FFR-guided CR reduces major adverse cardiac events compared to COR, though benefits may vary across settings. It significantly lowers ischemia-driven revascularization and repeat percutaneous coronary interventions, with no difference in all-cause mortality compared to COR. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024567524, PROSPERO (CRD42024567524).
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.