ArticleREC, interventional cardiology2025
Functional assessment in acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review of acute versus staged interventions.
Article in REC, interventional cardiology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and objectives: Several tools have been implemented to assess the functional significance of coronary lesions. Their reliability in the management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) might be affected by alterations in the acute phase that go beyond the affected area. Our main objective was to evaluate the reliability of invasive physiological indices for non-culprit lesions (NCL) in patients with ACS. Methods: We conducted a systematic review across ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science from inception through 5 December 2024. Additionally, a citation analysis and web searches were conducted. Results: A total of 20 articles, with 4379 patients were included in the analysis. The main study design is a cohort study. The following methods were compared between acute and staged interventions: Conclusions: Physiological methods lack complete reliability for evaluating NCL during acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. However, considering directions of change, fractional flow reserve is suitable for guiding the revascularization of acute positive NCL. Conversely, instantaneous wave-free ratio can be used to defer the revascularization of negative NCL. In non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome, fractional flow reserve is appropriate for assessing NCL within the acute phase.
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.