Optimal Timing of Complete Revascularization in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested that complete revascularization is superior to culprit-only revascularization for the treatment of enzyme-positive acute coronary syndrome. However, the optimal timing of complete revascularization remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing single-stage complete revascularization with multistage percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PubMed, and MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials comparing single-stage complete revascularization with multistage revascularization in patients with enzyme-positive acute coronary syndrome. The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events at longest follow-up. Data were pooled using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. Four randomized controlled trials (n=838) were included in our meta-analysis. The risk of unplanned repeat revascularization at longest follow-up was significantly lower in patients randomized to single-stage complete revascularization (risk ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.99). Results also suggest a trend towards lower risks of major adverse cardiovascular events for patients randomized to single-stage revascularization at 6 months (risk ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.40-1.11) and at longest follow-up (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.52-1.20). Risks of mortality and recurrent myocardial infarction at longest follow-up were also lower with single-stage revascularization, but 95% CIs were wide and included unity. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that single-stage complete revascularization is safe. There also appears to be a trend towards lower long-term risks of mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events; however, additional randomized controlled trials are required to confirm the potential benefits of single-stage multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".