Key result
Complete revascularization in STEMI and NSTEMI patients reduced rates of re-infarction, cardiovascular mortality, and MACE compared with culprit-only revascularization.
Why the study?
Does complete revascularization improve outcomes compared to culprit-only revascularization in patients with STEMI and NSTEMI?
Does complete revascularization improve outcomes compared to culprit-only revascularization in patients with STEMI and NSTEMI?
This review highlights that complete revascularization improves cardiovascular outcomes compared to culprit-only revascularization in both STEMI and NSTEMI patients.
was 36% in the invasive management group and 55% in the noninvasive management group. Several new meta-analyses, including data from the COMPLETE trial, comparing complete vs. culprit-only revascularization in STEMI patients supported the value of complete revascularization to reduce rates of re-infarction, cardiovascular mortality, and repeat revascularization with no difference in all-cause mortality. Likewise, in patients with NSTEMI, an observational study suggested that multivessel revascularization reduced 3-year rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (total death, MI, any revascularization) compared with culprit-vessel-only revascularization. However, in this study, 1-stage multivessel revascularization was not superior to multistage revascularization except in low-tointermediate risk patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alfonso et al. (2020) conducted a review in STEMI and NSTEMI. Complete or multivessel revascularization vs. Culprit-only revascularization was evaluated. Complete revascularization in STEMI and NSTEMI patients reduced rates of re-infarction, cardiovascular mortality, and MACE compared with culprit-only revascularization.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: