TY - JOUR
T1 - Multivessel Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in STEMI and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease
T2 - Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials
AU - Atti, Varunsiri
AU - Gwon, Yeongjin
AU - Narayanan, Mahesh Anantha
AU - Garcia, Santiago
AU - Sandoval, Yader
AU - Brilakis, Emmanouil S.
AU - Basir, Mir B.
AU - Turagam, Mohit K.
AU - Khandelwal, Akshay
AU - Mena-Hurtado, Carlos
AU - Mamas, Mamas A.
AU - Abbott, J. Dawn
AU - Bhatt, Deepak L.
AU - Velagapudi, Poonam
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation
PY - 2020/7/13
Y1 - 2020/7/13
N2 - Objectives: The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide a comprehensive evaluation of contemporary randomized trials addressing the efficacy and safety of multivessel versus culprit vessel–only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease. Background: Multivessel coronary artery disease is present in about one-half of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Randomized controlled trials comparing multivessel and culprit vessel–only PCI produced conflicting results regarding the benefits of a multivessel PCI strategy. Methods: A comprehensive search for published randomized controlled trials comparing multivessel PCI with culprit vessel–only PCI was conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO Services, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and scientific conference sessions from inception to September 15, 2019. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Primary efficacy outcomes were all-cause mortality and reinfarction. Results: Ten randomized controlled trials were included, representing 7,030 patients: 3,426 underwent multivessel PCI and 3,604 received culprit vessel–only PCI. Compared with culprit vessel–only PCI, multivessel PCI was associated with no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.05) and lower risk for reinfarction (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.95), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.00), and repeat revascularization (RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.44). Major bleeding (RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.67), stroke (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.65 to 2.01), and contrast-induced nephropathy (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.95) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Conclusions: Multivessel PCI was associated with a lower risk for reinfarction, without any difference in all-cause mortality, compared with culprit vessel–only PCI in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.
AB - Objectives: The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide a comprehensive evaluation of contemporary randomized trials addressing the efficacy and safety of multivessel versus culprit vessel–only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease. Background: Multivessel coronary artery disease is present in about one-half of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Randomized controlled trials comparing multivessel and culprit vessel–only PCI produced conflicting results regarding the benefits of a multivessel PCI strategy. Methods: A comprehensive search for published randomized controlled trials comparing multivessel PCI with culprit vessel–only PCI was conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO Services, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and scientific conference sessions from inception to September 15, 2019. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Primary efficacy outcomes were all-cause mortality and reinfarction. Results: Ten randomized controlled trials were included, representing 7,030 patients: 3,426 underwent multivessel PCI and 3,604 received culprit vessel–only PCI. Compared with culprit vessel–only PCI, multivessel PCI was associated with no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.05) and lower risk for reinfarction (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.95), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.00), and repeat revascularization (RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.44). Major bleeding (RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.67), stroke (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.65 to 2.01), and contrast-induced nephropathy (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.95) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Conclusions: Multivessel PCI was associated with a lower risk for reinfarction, without any difference in all-cause mortality, compared with culprit vessel–only PCI in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.
KW - ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
KW - cardiovascular mortality
KW - contrast-induced nephropathy
KW - culprit vessel–only revascularization
KW - major adverse cardiac events
KW - multivessel coronary artery disease
KW - multivessel revascularization
KW - reinfarction
KW - repeat revascularization
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85086938183&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85086938183&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.04.055
DO - 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.04.055
M3 - Article
C2 - 32646699
AN - SCOPUS:85086938183
SN - 1936-8798
VL - 13
SP - 1571
EP - 1582
JO - JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
JF - JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
IS - 13
ER -