Multivessel versus culprit lesion only percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 28703046
- DOI: 10.1177/2048872617719640
Multivessel versus culprit lesion only percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Background: Early revascularisation of the culprit lesion is the therapeutic cornerstone in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. The optimal management of additional non-culprit lesions is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to summarise current evidence on the comparison of immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) or culprit lesion only PCI with possible staged revascularisation (C-PCI) in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.
Methods: Medical literature databases were screened to identify analyses comparing MV-PCI with C-PCI in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease. In absence of randomised trials, 10 cohort studies were included in the current meta-analysis. The primary outcome of short-term mortality was assessed at hospital discharge or 30 days after hospital admission. Secondary outcomes were long-term mortality as well as myocardial re-infarction, stroke, acute renal failure, and bleeding at short-term follow-up.
Results: Of 6051 patients, 1194 (19.7%) received MV-PCI and 4857 (80.3%) C-PCI. Short-term mortality was 37.5% in patients undergoing MV-PCI compared with 28.8% in C-PCI patients (risk ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.41, p=0.001). Long-term mortality ( p=0.77), myocardial re-infarction ( p=0.77), stroke ( p=0.12), acute renal failure ( p=0.17) and bleeding ( p=0.53) did not differ significantly between the two revascularisation groups.
Conclusions: Results of this first meta-analysis on the interventional management of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease do not support MV-PCI over C-PCI. However, possible treatment selection bias in the individual studies must be taken into account.
Keywords: Multivessel coronary artery disease; acute myocardial infarction; cardiogenic shock; percutaneous coronary intervention; reperfusion.
Similar articles
-
A systematic review and meta-analysis on primary percutaneous coronary intervention of an unprotected left main coronary artery culprit lesion in the setting of acute myocardial infarction.JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Apr;6(4):317-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2012.10.020. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013. PMID: 23597607
-
Completeness, timing, and guidance of percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.EuroIntervention. 2025 Feb 17;21(4):e203-e216. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00814. EuroIntervention. 2025. PMID: 39962946
-
Editor's Choice- Impact of immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus culprit lesion intervention on 1-year outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Results of the randomised IABP-SHOCK II trial.Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2017 Oct;6(7):601-609. doi: 10.1177/2048872616668977. Epub 2016 Sep 21. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2017. PMID: 27655918 Clinical Trial.
-
Early versus delayed complete revascularisation in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Open Heart. 2022 Jun;9(1):e001975. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2022-001975. Open Heart. 2022. PMID: 35728889 Free PMC article.
-
Culprit Vessel-Only Versus Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Complicating ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Collaborative Meta-Analysis.Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Nov;10(11):e005582. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.005582. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017. PMID: 29146672 Review.
Cited by
-
Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction.Intensive Care Med. 2018 Jun;44(6):760-773. doi: 10.1007/s00134-018-5214-9. Epub 2018 May 16. Intensive Care Med. 2018. PMID: 29767322 Review.
-
The effect of complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with Killip class ≥ III.Coron Artery Dis. 2020 Jan;31(1):13-19. doi: 10.1097/MCA.0000000000000815. Coron Artery Dis. 2020. PMID: 31658147 Free PMC article.
-
Culprit-only or multivessel PCI in cardiogenic shock myocardial infarction patients: simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones.J Thorac Dis. 2019 May;11(Suppl 9):S1296-S1298. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.04.80. J Thorac Dis. 2019. PMID: 31245114 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Predictors of Outcomes in Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock.Cardiol Rev. 2018 Sep/Oct;26(5):255-266. doi: 10.1097/CRD.0000000000000190. Cardiol Rev. 2018. PMID: 29300230 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Completeness of revascularisation in acute coronary syndrome patients with multivessel disease.EuroIntervention. 2021 Jun 25;17(3):193-201. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-20-00957. EuroIntervention. 2021. PMID: 34167938 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous