Key result
Staged complete PCI during rehospitalization cuts all-cause mortality ~47% vs culprit-only revascularization in NSTEMI.
Why the study?
The optimal timing of revascularization in NSTEMI patients with multivessel disease remains controversial.
Do complete revascularization strategies reduce mortality and recurrent MI in patients with NSTEMI and multivessel disease compared to culprit-only revascularization?
Meta-Analysis (n=34,151)
Do complete revascularization strategies reduce mortality and recurrent MI in patients with NSTEMI and multivessel disease compared to culprit-only revascularization?
Odds Ratio: 0.53 (95% CI 0.3–0.93)
Complete revascularization strategies, particularly planned multi-vessel PCI during a second hospitalization, are more effective than culprit-only revascularization for improving clinical outcomes in patients with NSTEMI and multivessel disease.
MV-PCI was associated with lower MACE and mortality than culprit-only; leaves open optimal timing and strategy pending randomized trials.
Introduction: The optimal timing of revascularization in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) with multivessel disease (MVD) remains controversial. Aim: We investigated the impact of different revascularization strategies on clinical outcomes to assess the optimal revascularization strategy for these patients. Methods: We performed a network meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing revascularization strategies in NSTEMI with MVD. Effect sizes were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) using a random-effects model. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality and the primary safety outcome was recurrent myocardial infarction. Results: Eight eligible studies involving 34,151 patients receiving four revascularization strategies were analyzed. Compared to conventional culprit-only revascularization (COR), planned complete multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention during a second hospitalization (MV-PCI) reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (MV-PCI vs. COR: OR = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.38-0.74) and decreased all-cause mortality (MV-PCI vs. COR: OR = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.30-0.93) and the likelihood of repeat revascularization (MV-PCI vs. COR: OR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.37-0.82). However, compared to COR, immediate complete revascularization (ICR) but not MV-PCI was associated with reduced risk of recurrent MI (COR vs. ICR: OR = 1.39; 95% CI: 1.07-1.81; MV-PCI vs. COR: OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.40-1.01). Compared to MV-PCI: COR and staged complete revascularization during index PCI (SCR) increased the risk of cardiovascular mortality (MV-PCI vs. COR: OR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.34-0.70; MV-PCI vs. SCR: OR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.40-0.96). COR also had significantly higher cardiovascular mortality compared to ICR (COR vs. ICR: OR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.02-1.85). Conclusions: Complete revascularization is more effective compared to culprit-only revascularization for most follow-ups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2024) conducted a meta-analysis in Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) with multivessel disease (MVD) (n=34,151). Planned complete multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention during a second hospitalization (MV-PCI) vs. Culprit-only revascularization (COR) was evaluated on All-cause mortality (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30-0.93). Planned complete multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention during a second hospitalization reduced all-cause mortality (OR 0.53) compared to culprit-only revascularization in patients with NSTEMI and multivessel disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: