Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 395

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A randomised trial of target-vessel versus multi-vessel revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: major adverse cardiac events during long-term follow-up

Open access
Politi, Luigi, Sgura, Fabio, Rossi, Rosario, Monopoli, Daniel, Guerri, Elisa, Leuzzi, Chiara, Bursi, Francesca, Sangiorgi, Giuseppe Massimo, Modena, Maria Grazia·2010·Heart

Abstract

Background: Few reports described outcomes of complete compared with infarct-related artery (IRA)-only revascularisation in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Moreover, no studies have compared the simultaneous treatment of non-IRA with the IRA treatment followed by an elective procedure for the other lesions (staged revascularisation). Methods: The outcomes of 214 consecutive patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD undergoing primary angioplasty were studied. Before the first angioplasty patients were randomly assigned to three different strategies: culprit vessel angioplasty-only (COR group); staged revascularisation (SR group) and simultaneous treatment of non-IRA (CR group). Results: During a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, 42 (50.0%) patients in the COR group experienced at least one major adverse cardiac event (MACE), 13 (20.0%) in the SR group and 15 (23.1%) in the CR group, p<0.001. Inhospital death, repeat revascularisation and re-hospitalisation occurred more frequently in the COR group (all p<0.05), whereas there was no significant difference in re-infarction among the three groups. Survival free of MACE was significantly reduced in the COR group but was similar in the CR and SR groups. Conclusions: Culprit vessel-only angioplasty was associated with the highest rate of long-term MACE compared with multivessel treatment. Patients scheduled for staged revascularisation experienced a similar rate of MACE to patients undergoing complete simultaneous treatment of non-IRA.

Overview

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 · 10.1136/hrt.2009.177162

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 19 references

Cited by

See all 395

Metadata

Authors
Politi, L., Sgura, F., Rossi, R., Monopoli, D., Guerri, E., Leuzzi, C., Bursi, F., Sangiorgi, G. M., & Modena, M. G.
Venue
Heart
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2009-09-23
Volume
96
Issue
9
Pages
662-667
ISSN
  • 1355-6037 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-201X
OpenAlex
W2149035425
Cited by
395
References
19
FWCI
19.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A randomised trial of target-vessel versus multi-vessel revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: major adverse cardiac events during long-term follow-up. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/hrt.2009.177162
The paper
Politi, L., Sgura, F., Rossi, R., Monopoli, D., Guerri, E., Leuzzi, C., Bursi, F., Sangiorgi, G. M., & Modena, M. G. (2010). A randomised trial of target-vessel versus multi-vessel revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: major adverse cardiac events during long-term follow-up. Heart. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2009.177162

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.