Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 May;21(5):684-691.
doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2020.01.020. Epub 2020 Jan 30.

Complete Revascularization in Patients With STEMI and Multi-Vessel Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Complete Revascularization in Patients With STEMI and Multi-Vessel Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Ahmad Al-Abdouh et al. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020 May.

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the treatment of choice for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, efficacy of complete vs culprit only revascularization in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease remains unclear.

Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, and Cochrane library. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, stroke, major bleeding, and contrast induced nephropathy. Estimates were calculated as random effects hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results: Twelve trials with 7592 patients were included. There was a significantly lower risk of MACE [HR 0.61; 95% CI (0.43-0.60); p = 0.0009; I2 = 72%], cardiovascular mortality [HR 0.74; 95% CI (0.56-0.99); p = 0.04; I2 = 2%], and repeat revascularization [HR 0.43; 95% CI (0.31-0.59); p < 0.00001; I2 = 67%] in patients treated with complete compared with culprit-only revascularization. There was no statistically significant difference in MI [HR 0.77; 95% CI (0.52-1.12); p = 0.17; I2 = 49%], all-cause mortality [HR 0.86; 95% CI (0.65-1.13); p = 0.28; I2 = 14%], heart failure [HR 0.82 95% CI (0.51-1.32); p = 0.42; I2 = 26%], major bleeding [HR 1.07; 95% CI (0.66-1.75); p = 0.78; I2 = 25%], stroke [HR 0.67; 95% CI (0.24-1.89); p = 0.45; I2 = 54%], or contrast induced nephropathy, although higher contrast volumes were used in the complete revascularization group [HR 1.22; 95% CI (0.78-1.92); p = 0.39; I2 = 0%].

Conclusion: Complete revascularization was associated with a significantly lower risk of MACE, cardiovascular mortality, and repeat revascularization compared with culprit-only revascularization. These results suggest complete revascularization with PCI following STEMI and multivessel disease should be considered.

Keywords: And STEMI; Complete; Culprit; Revascularization.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources