TY - JOUR
T1 - Culprit-lesion only versus complete multivessel percutaneous intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction
T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
AU - Villablanca, Pedro A.
AU - Briceno, David F.
AU - Massera, Daniele
AU - Hlinomaz, Ota
AU - Lombardo, Marissa
AU - Bortnick, Anna E.
AU - Menegus, Mark A.
AU - Pyo, Robert T.
AU - Garcia, Mario J.
AU - Mookadam, Farouk
AU - Ramakrishna, Harish
AU - Wiley, Jose
AU - Faggioni, Michela
AU - Dangas, George D.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd
PY - 2016/10/1
Y1 - 2016/10/1
N2 - Background ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients with concomitant multivessel (MV) coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with poor outcomes. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit-lesion only (CLO) as compared with a MV PCI approach to revascularization remains uncertain. Our objective is to gain a better understanding of the efficacy and safety of CLO as compared with MV PCI in patients with STEMI by conducting an updated meta-analysis. Methods A comprehensive search of PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register, the ClinicalTrials.gov Website, and Google Scholar databases of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. Results Seven RCTs were included, enrolling a total of 2006 patients. We found that there was a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43–0.90), cardiovascular mortality (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27–0.80), and repeat revascularization (RRV) (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30–0.51) favoring MV over the CLO approach for patients undergoing primary PCI. The number needed to treat in order to prevent one CV mortality, RRV, or MACE event is 47, 11, and 16 patients, respectively. No differences were observed between MV vs. CLO PCI for subsequent myocardial infarction (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.40–1.39), all-cause mortality (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53–1.15), non-cardiovascular mortality (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.74–2.48), all-bleeding events (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.40–1.65), contrast-induced nephropathy (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.33–1.54), and stroke (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.47–3.46). Conclusions MV PCI significantly reduces the rate of MACE, CV mortality, and RRV without significant harm as compared to CLO PCI.
AB - Background ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients with concomitant multivessel (MV) coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with poor outcomes. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit-lesion only (CLO) as compared with a MV PCI approach to revascularization remains uncertain. Our objective is to gain a better understanding of the efficacy and safety of CLO as compared with MV PCI in patients with STEMI by conducting an updated meta-analysis. Methods A comprehensive search of PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register, the ClinicalTrials.gov Website, and Google Scholar databases of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. Results Seven RCTs were included, enrolling a total of 2006 patients. We found that there was a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43–0.90), cardiovascular mortality (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27–0.80), and repeat revascularization (RRV) (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30–0.51) favoring MV over the CLO approach for patients undergoing primary PCI. The number needed to treat in order to prevent one CV mortality, RRV, or MACE event is 47, 11, and 16 patients, respectively. No differences were observed between MV vs. CLO PCI for subsequent myocardial infarction (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.40–1.39), all-cause mortality (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53–1.15), non-cardiovascular mortality (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.74–2.48), all-bleeding events (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.40–1.65), contrast-induced nephropathy (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.33–1.54), and stroke (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.47–3.46). Conclusions MV PCI significantly reduces the rate of MACE, CV mortality, and RRV without significant harm as compared to CLO PCI.
KW - Meta-analysis
KW - Multivessel
KW - ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84977100456&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84977100456&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.06.098
DO - 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.06.098
M3 - Article
C2 - 27390938
AN - SCOPUS:84977100456
SN - 0167-5273
VL - 220
SP - 251
EP - 259
JO - International Journal of Cardiology
JF - International Journal of Cardiology
ER -