Complete vs culprit-only revascularization for patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: The American heart journal 2014, Vol.167 (1), p.1-14.e2
• Main Authors: Bainey, Kevin R., MD, MSC, Mehta, Shamir R., MD, MSC, Lai, Tony, MBBS, Welsh, Robert C., MD
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Bias; Cardiovascular; Cardiovascular disease; Coronary Artery Disease - mortality; Coronary Artery Disease - therapy; Coronary vessels; Heart attacks; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Mortality; Myocardial Infarction; Myocardial Revascularization - methods; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - methods; Risk Assessment; Studies; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0002-8703; 1097-6744
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.09.018

Background Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are most commonly treated with PCI to the culprit lesion only. Whether a strategy of complete revascularization in these patients is superior is unknown. We performed a meta-analysis comparing the benefits and risks of routine culprit-only PCI vs multivessel PCI in STEMI. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, and The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1996 to January 2011. Relevant conference abstracts were searched from January 2002 to January 2011. Studies included STEMI with multivessel disease receiving primary PCI. The primary end point was long-term mortality. Data were combined using a fixed-effects model. Results Of 507 citations, 26 studies (3 randomized, 23 nonrandomized; 46,324 patients, 7886 multivessel PCI and 38,438 culprit-only PCI) were included. There was no significant difference in hospital mortality with multivessel PCI vs culprit-only PCI (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 95% CI 0.98-1.25, P = .10 [randomized OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06-0.91, P = .04; nonrandomized OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.00-1.27, P = .06]). However, if multivessel PCI during index catheterization was performed, hospital mortality was increased (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.19-1.54, P < .001). When multivessel PCI was performed as a staged procedure, hospital mortality was lower (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21-0.59; P < .001; P interaction < .001). Reduced long-term mortality (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65-0.85, P < .001[randomized OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.28-1.33, P = .22; nonrandomized OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.86, P < .001]) and repeat PCI (OR 0.65; 95% 0.46-0.90, P = .01[randomized OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17-0.57, P < .001; nonrandomized OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.59-1.31, P = .54]) were observed with multivessel PCI. Conclusion Overall, staged multivessel PCI improved short- and long-term survival and reduced repeat PCI. Still, large randomized trials are required to confirm the benefits of staged multivessel PCI in STEMI.