ArticleCirculation reports2025
Early Invasive Strategy in Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome With Congestive Heart Failure - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Circulation reports, 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
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Congestive heart failure (CHF) is associated with worse clinical outcomes in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS); however, the optimal timing of invasive intervention in NSTE-ACS with CHF remains unclear. In this study, we assessed the impact of early vs. delayed invasive strategies on mortality and cardiac events by synthesizing a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of patients with NSTE-ACS. Methods and Results: We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and the Web of Science for randomized controlled trials comparing early and delayed invasive strategies in patients with NSTE-ACS and CHF, published before February 2023. Observational studies were excluded. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction at 2 years. Two eligible studies, including 310 participants, were identified. The primary endpoint occurred in 40 (24.5%) of 163 patients in the early invasive strategy group, compared with 39 (26.5%) of 147 patients in the delayed invasive strategy group, and the effect of an early invasive strategy on the primary outcome was uncertain (risk ratio 0.95 [95% confidence interval 0.66-1.37]). The certainty of the evidence was rated very low. Conclusions: The effects of an early invasive strategy in patients with NSTE-ACS and CHF remains uncertain, with no clear reduction in composite outcome of mortality and myocardial infarction at 2 years compared with delayed intervention.
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.