Complete revascularisation vs culprit‐only revascularisation: Overall adverse events (pooled short and long term)
It is very uncertain whether complete revascularisation changes overall adverse events (pooled short and long term) compared with culprit‐only revascularisation (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Complete revascularisation vs culprit‐only revascularisation Overall adverse events (pooled short and long term) · people with STEMI and MVD. It is very uncertain whether complete revascularisation changes overall adverse events (pooled short and long term) 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 | OR 0.84 [0.58, 1.21] | 6 studies · 4086 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complete versus culprit‐only revascularisation in ST elevation myocardial infarction with multi‐vessel disease 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not 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.