Cited by 168Coronary Interventions and DiagnosticsAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics

Single-Staged Compared With Multi-Staged PCI in Multivessel NSTEMI Patients

Open access
Sardella, Gennaro, Lucisano, Luigi, Garbo, Roberto, Pennacchi, Mauro, Cavallo, Erika, Stio, Rocco Edoardo, Calcagno, Simone, Ugo, Fabrizio +3 more·2016·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

Background A lack of clarity exists about the role of complete coronary revascularization in patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.Objectives The aim of our study was to compare long-term outcomes in terms of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events of 2 different complete coronary revascularization strategies in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease: 1-stage percutaneous coronary intervention (1S-PCI) during the index procedure versus multistage percutaneous coronary intervention (MS-PCI) complete coronary revascularization during the index hospitalization.Methods In the SMILE (Impact of Different Treatment in Multivessel Non ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients: One Stage Versus Multistaged Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial, 584 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 manner to 1S-PCI or MS-PCI. The primary study endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, which were defined as cardiac death, death, reinfarction, rehospitalization for unstable angina, repeat coronary revascularization (target vessel revascularization), and stroke at 1 year.Results The occurrence of the primary endpoint was significantly lower in the 1-stage group (1S-PCI: n = 36 [13.63%] vs. MS-PCI: n = 61 [23.19%]; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.549 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.363 to 0.828]; p = 0.004). The 1-year rate of target vessel revascularization was significantly higher in the MS-PCI group (1S-PCI: n = 22 [8.33%] vs. MS-PCI: n = 40 [15.20%]; HR: 0.522 [95% CI: 0.310 to 0.878]; p = 0.01; p log-rank = 0.013). When the analyses were limited to cardiac death (1S-PCI: n = 9 [3.41%] vs. MS-PCI: n = 14 [5.32%]; HR: 0.624 [95% CI: 0.270 to 1.441]; p = 0.27) and myocardial infarction (1S-PCI: n = 7 [2.65%] vs. MS-PCI: n = 10 [3.80%]; HR: 0.678 [95% CI: 0.156 to 2.657]; p = 0.46), no significant differences were observed between groups.Conclusions In multivessel non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients, complete 1-stage coronary revascularization is superior to multistage PCI in terms of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. (Impact of Different Treatment in Multivessel Non ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction [NSTEMI]Patients One Stage Versus Multistaged Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] [SMILE]: NCT01478984).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.082

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. GISE. Dati di attività 2013: commento dei Delegati Regionali. G Ital. Cardiol Invasiva 2014;2: 2-12. Available at: http://www.ilgiornale.gise.it/ pdf/2_2014_02_12.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2015.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sardella, G., Lucisano, L., Garbo, R., Pennacchi, M., Cavallo, E., Stio, R. E., Calcagno, S., Ugo, F., Boccuzzi, G., Fedele, F., & Mancone, M.
Affiliations
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
  • Ospedale San Giovanni Bosco (IT)
Corresponding author
Sardella, Gennaro
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-01
Volume
67
Issue
3
Pages
264-272
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2266436320
Cited by
168
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2013: 1
FWCI
15.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Keywords
complete coronary revascularization, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, target vessel revascularization, cardiovascular mortality, long-term outcomes, multivessel coronary artery disease, reinfarction, stroke, hospital readmission
MeSH terms
Coronary Vessels, Humans, Myocardial Infarction, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review