Key result
Complete revascularization cuts MACE ~38% vs culprit-only, with index procedures outperforming staged revascularization.
Why the study?
Although complete revascularization during PCI improves prognosis in patients with multivessel disease, the optimal timing for treating the non-culprit artery has remained controversial.
Does complete revascularization at the index procedure or as a staged procedure reduce MACE compared to culprit-only revascularization in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease?
Meta-Analysis (n=8,568)
Does complete revascularization at the index procedure or as a staged procedure reduce MACE compared to culprit-only revascularization in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease?
Relative Risk: 0.62 (95% CI 0.48–0.79)
Absolute Event Rate: 13.5% vs 22.3%
p-value: p=<0.001
In STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, complete revascularization at the index procedure is superior to staged revascularization in reducing the risk of MACE.
Supports index complete revascularization in multivessel disease; confirms RCT superiority over culprit-only and staged strategies.
Background and aims Recently, several randomized trials have shown that patients with multivessel disease (MVD) often pursue complete revascularization during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to improve their prognosis. However, the optimal time for the non-culprit artery has been controversial. This study aimed to determine the optimal strategy for revascularization in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing three revascularization strategies [i.e., complete revascularization at the index procedure (CR), complete revascularization as a staged procedure (SR), or culprit-only revascularization (COR)] in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were included. We performed both pairwise and network meta-analyses. Network meta-analysis was performed using mixed treatment comparison models. Results 17 trials with 8568 patients were included. In the network meta-analysis, the most interesting finding was that staged revascularization increased the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) compared with complete revascularization at the index procedure [odds ratio (OR): 1.93; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07–3.49]. In the pairwise meta-analysis, complete revascularization reduced the incidence of MACE [risk ratio (RR): 0.62, 95% CI: 0.48–0.79, p < 0.001], mainly because it reduced the probability of unplanned repeat revascularization (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.33–0.75, p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, or nonfatal re-myocardial infarction (MI). Conclusion Our analysis suggests that complete revascularization should be performed in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, and complete revascularization at the index procedure is superior to staged revascularization in reducing the risk of MACE events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Feng et al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel coronary artery disease (n=8,568). Complete revascularization vs. Culprit-only revascularization was evaluated on Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48-0.79, p=<0.001). Complete revascularization reduced the incidence of major adverse cardiac events compared to culprit-only revascularization (RR 0.62), and index procedure complete revascularization was superior to staged revascularization.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: