ReviewInterventional cardiology (London, England)2026
Complete Revascularisation in ST-elevation MI: Do We Really Buy It? Challenging the Current Approach to Bystander Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Review in Interventional cardiology (London, England), 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Complete revascularisation during ST-elevation MI (STEMI) has Class 1A guideline support based on multiple randomised controlled trials showing improved clinical outcomes compared with culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the concept that all STEMI patients with bystander disease should undergo complete revascularisation is flawed. The randomised controlled trials have highly variable anatomical and physiological inclusion criteria and drivers for outcome benefit, to the extent that it is hard to pick out a possible mechanism of effect. There is a case to pursue some fundamental questions about how prophylactic stenting may help bystander disease in STEMI patients, as well as to try to establish whether there are high-risk patients/vessels/lesions that derive substantial benefit from stenting and, conversely, others in whom it is futile.
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.