Abstract 4135984: Comparison of Immediate and Staged Complete Revascularization in STEMI Patients with Multivessel Disease: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients diagnosed with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) frequently present with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The optimal timing of complete revascularization (CR) in these cases remains a subject of ongoing debate. Objective: To assess major cardiovascular outcomes and procedural complications in STEMI patients with multivessel CAD undergoing immediate versus staged CR post index procedure. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate to staged CR in STEMI and multivessel CAD. Trials were identified via a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Libraries from database inception to March 6, 2024. The data were analyzed using RevMan software. Results: Among five RCTs (n=1,415) the majority of participants were male, the weighted mean follow-up duration across studies was 15.6 months. Immediate versus staged CR showed no significant differences in MACE (13.3% vs 9.8%; RR: 1.07, 95% CI [0.62, 1.83]), all-cause mortality (3% vs 4.55%; RR: 0.70, 95% CI [0.41, 1.21]), or MI (4.5% vs 2.6%; RR: 1.43, 95% CI [0.58, 3.55]). However, the staged group had higher unplanned revascularization incidence (8.6% vs 4.4%; RR: 1.92, 95% CI [1.21, 3.04]). Conclusion: Staged revascularization in STEMI patients with multivessel CAD demonstrates comparable effectiveness to immediate revascularization but leads to a greater number of unplanned revascularization procedures, likely due to delayed intervention. The early implementation of staged PCI during the initial hospitalization phase may provide equivalent efficacy to immediate complete revascularization. Nonetheless, further research is necessary to corroborate these findings.
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 | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".