Key result
Routine multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention did not significantly reduce the risk of mortality compared to culprit-vessel intervention (HR 0.79) in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes.
Why the study?
Does multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention improve outcomes compared to culprit-vessel angioplasty in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes and multivessel disease?
Meta-Analysis (n=117,685)
Yes
Does multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention improve outcomes compared to culprit-vessel angioplasty in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes and multivessel disease?
Routine multivessel angioplasty in NSTE-ACS patients with multivessel disease was not superior to culprit-vessel angioplasty, suggesting culprit-vessel PCI should remain the preferred strategy.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports culprit-only PCI in NSTE-ACS multivessel disease; confirms no mortality benefit from routine multivessel intervention.
BACKGROUND: Multivessel disease is common in acute coronary syndrome patients. However, if multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention is superior to culprit-vessel angioplasty has not been systematically addressed. METHODS: A metaanalysis was conducted including studies that compared multivessel angioplasty with culprit-vessel angioplasty among non-ST elevation ACS patients. Since all studies were observational adjusted estimates of effects were used. Pooled estimates of effects were computed using the generic inverse of variance with a random effects model. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included (n = 117,685). Median age was 64.1 years, most patients were male, 29.3% were diabetic and 36,9% had previous myocardial infarction. Median follow-up was 12 months. There were no significant differences in mortality risk (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.09; I2 67.9%), with moderate inconsistency. Also, there were no significant differences in the risk of death or MI (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.17; I2 62.3%), revascularization (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.05; I2 49.9%) or in the combined incidence of death, myocardial infarction or revascularization (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; I2 70.8%). All analyses exhibited a moderate degree of inconsistency. Subgroup analyses by design reduced the inconsistency of the analyses on death or myocardial infarction, revascularization and death, myocardial infarction or revascularization. There was evidence of publication bias (Egger's test p = 0.097). CONCLUSION: Routine multivessel angioplasty in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome patients with multivessel disease was not superior to culprit-vessel angioplasty. Randomized controlled trials comparing safety and effectiveness of both strategies in this setting are needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mariani et al. (2016) conducted a meta-analysis in Non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) with multivessel disease (n=117,685). Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV PCI) vs. Culprit-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (CV PCI) was evaluated on All-cause mortality (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.09). Routine multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention did not significantly reduce the risk of mortality compared to culprit-vessel intervention (HR 0.79) in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: