Question · asked by 1 review

Complete revascularisation vs culprit‐only revascularisation: Myocardial infarction

It is very uncertain whether complete revascularisation changes long‐term myocardial infarction (≥ 1 year after the intervention) compared with culprit‐only revascularisation (very low certainty).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Complete revascularisation vs culprit‐only revascularisation
Long‐term myocardial infarction (≥ 1 year after the intervention) · people with STEMI and MVD.
It is very uncertain whether complete revascularisation changes long‐term myocardial infarction (≥ 1 year after the intervention) compared with culprit‐only revascularisation (very low certainty).
Complete versus culprit‐only revascularisation in ST elevation myocardial infarction with multi‐vessel disease (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.62 [0.44, 0.89]6 studies · 2099 participantsVery low

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Complete versus culprit‐only revascularisation in ST elevation myocardial infarction with multi‐vessel disease
2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
Not reportedlist not extracted yetNot assessed

Studies behind the findings

None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.

How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.