Key result
Staged complete revascularization provides comparable MACE rates to immediate revascularization in STEMI and MVD.
Why the study?
The optimal timing of noninfarct-related artery intervention (immediate vs staged revascularization) in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease remains uncertain.
Does staged complete revascularization compared to immediate complete revascularization reduce major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease?
Meta-Analysis (n=5,077)
Does staged complete revascularization compared to immediate complete revascularization reduce major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease?
Staged and immediate complete revascularization provide comparable ischemic, safety, and mortality outcomes in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, supporting clinical equipoise.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports clinical equipoise between staged and immediate complete revascularization in STEMI-MVD; low-certainty evidence leaves optimal timing unresolved.
Complete revascularization improves outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD); however, the optimal timing of noninfarct-related artery intervention during the index procedure, immediate revascularization (IR) versus a staged approach (SR), remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing SR and IR in patients with STEMI and MVD. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events. Secondary outcomes included all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, stroke, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, and heart failure hospitalization. Random-effects models with Hartung-Knapp adjustment were used. Trial sequential analysis assessed evidence conclusiveness, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Eight randomized trials, including 5077 patients (2556 SR; 2521 IR), were analyzed. No significant differences were observed between SR and IR for major adverse cardiovascular events [odds ratios (ORs), 1.07; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.76-1.49], recurrent myocardial infarction (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.80-2.14), cardiovascular mortality (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51-1.13), or all-cause mortality (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.54-1.06). Rates of stent thrombosis, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, and heart failure hospitalization were also comparable. Trial sequential analysis indicated insufficient information size to draw definitive conclusions, and the certainty of evidence ranged from very low to low. In patients with STEMI and MVD, staged and immediate complete revascularization provide comparable ischemic, safety, and mortality outcomes. Current evidence supports clinical equipoise, and revascularization timing should be individualized pending results from adequately powered trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Majeed et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) (n=5,077). Staged revascularization (SR) vs. Immediate revascularization (IR) was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76-1.49). Staged complete revascularization provided comparable rates of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to immediate revascularization in patients with STEMI and MVD (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.76-1.49).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: