Immediate versus staged revascularisation of non-culprit arteries in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical Outcomes of Immediate Versus Staged Revascularization of Nonculprit Arteries in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent guidelines for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) recommend revascularization of non-culprit lesions following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the optimal timing for this procedure-whether immediate or staged-remains uncertain.

METHODS

A comprehensive search using PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify studies comparing clinical outcomes between immediate and staged revascularization approaches in patients with MVD undergoing PCI. A random effects model was used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome was 1-year all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comprising 3886 patients (1964 in the immediate revascularization group and 1940 in the staged revascularization group), with a median follow-up of 12 months, were included in the analysis. No significant difference in the risk of 1-year mortality was noted between the two approaches. The risk of target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1-year follow-up was significantly lower in the immediate revascularization group compared to the staged revascularization group (RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.47-0.86; I²: 0%; p = 0.03). Additionally, the immediate revascularization group had a significantly lower risk of myocardial infarction (MI) at 1-year follow-up than the staged approach (RR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.37-0.88; I²: 10%; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that immediate revascularization is associated with a significantly lower risk of TVR and MI at 1-year compared to staged revascularization.

Comparison of immediate and staged complete revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of complete revascularization (CR) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD) is still debated. The safety and efficacy of immediate and staged CR (ICR vs. SCR) in this patient group were thus compared.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials of CR strategies for MVD. Studies comparing cardiovascular benefits between ICR and SCR in ACS patients with MVD were included. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared using random-effect risk ratios (RRs). The analysis included seven studies with 3445 patients. The ICR and SCR groups showed comparable risks of all-cause death at 1 year (RR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.95), but the risk increased at 1 month in ICR patients (RR: 2.35; 95% CI: 1.12 to 4.91). ICR reduced the risk of myocardial infarction (MI, RR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.90) and target vessel revascularization (TVR, RR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.85) at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

The all-cause death rates were comparable between ICR and SCR strategies. CR at index procedure could reduce MI and TVR rates at 1 year (46% and 38%, respectively). Future studies need to obtain more precise evidence and identify the cardiovascular benefits of these two strategies.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

Not applicable.

Impact of Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularization on Short-Term and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD), complete revascularization (CR) improves prognosis. This meta-analysis, summarizing recent RCTs, contrasts short-term and long-term clinical outcomes between immediate complete revascularization (ICR) and staged complete revascularization (SCR).

METHODS

We systematically searched the online database and eight RCTs were involved. The primary outcomes included long-term unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, re-infarction, combined cardiovascular (CV) death or myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause death, CV death, stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). The secondary outcomes were 1-month unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, re-infarction, all-cause death, and CV death. Safety endpoints included stent thrombosis and major bleeding.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs comprising 5198 patients were involved. ICR reduced long-term unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.51-0.81, p < 0.001), combined CV death or MI (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.78, p = 0.002), and re-infarction (RR 0.66,95% CI 0.48 to 0.91, p = 0.012) compared with SCR. ICR also decreased 1-month unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (RR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21-0.77, p = 0.006) and re-infarction (RR 0.33, 95% CI:0.15-0.74, p = 0.007) but increased 1-month all-cause death (RR 2.22, 95% CI 1.06-4.65, p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

In ACS patients with MVD, we first found that ICR significantly lowered the risk of both short-term and long-term unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization and re-infarction, as well as the long-term composite outcome of CV death or MI compared with SCR. However, there may be an increase in 1-month all-cause death in the ICR group.

Immediate vs. multistage revascularization of non-infarct coronary artery(-ies) in patients with hemodynamically stable multivessel disease acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Untreated multivessel disease (MVD) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been linked to a higher risk of recurrent ischemia and death within one year . Current guidelines recommend percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for significant non-infarct artery (-ies) (non-IRA) stenosis in hemodynamically stable AMI patients with MVD, either during or after successful primary PCI, within 45-days. However, deciding the timing of revascularization for non-IRA in cases of MVD is uncertain.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed based on PRISMA guidelines after registering in PROSPERO (CRD42023472652). Databases were searched for relevant articles published before 10 November 2023. Pertinent data from the included studies were extracted and analyzed using RevMan v5.4.

RESULTS

Out of 640 studies evaluated, there were 13 RCTs with 5144 patients with AMI with MVD. The immediate non-IRA PCI is associated with a significantly lower occurrence of unplanned ischemia-driven PCI (OR 0.60; confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.83) and target-vessel revascularization (OR 0.72; CI 0.53-0.97) . Although there is a favorable trend for major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), nonfatal AMI, cerebrovascular events, and major bleeding in the immediate non-culprit artery (-ies) PCI, those were statistically non-significant. Similarly, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stent thrombosis, and acute renal insufficiency did not show significant differences between two groups.

CONCLUSION

Among hemodynamically stable patients with multivessel AMI, the immediate PCI strategy was superior to the multistage PCI strategy for the unplanned ischemia-driven PCI and target-vessel revascularization while odds are favorable in terms of MACCE, nonfatal AMI, cerebrovascular events, and major bleeding at longest follow-up.

Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularization in Patients Presenting with Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Coronary Disease Without Cardiac Shock: A Study-Level Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Achieving full revascularization via percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may enhance the prognosis of individuals diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel coronary disease (MVD). The present work focused on investigating whether PCI should be performed during staged or index procedures for non-culprit lesions.

METHODS

Electronic databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, were systematically explored to locate studies contrasting immediate revascularization with staged complete revascularization for patients who experienced ACS and MVD without cardiac shock. The outcome measures comprised major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (UIDR).

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials involving 3550 patients, including 1780 who received immediate complete revascularization (ICR) and 1770 who received staged complete revascularization (SCR), were included in the analysis. The ICR group had lower MACEs (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.61~0.87, P = 0.0004), MI (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.37~0.77, P = 0.0008), and UIDR (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.50~0.81, P = 0.0003) than did the SCR group. All-cause mortality, CVD incidence, and stroke incidence did not significantly differ between the two groups. According to our subgroup analyses based on the time window of the SCR, the ICR group had significantly fewer MACEs (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.56~0.88, P = 0.003), MI (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.37~0.77, P = 0.0002), and UIDR (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.40~0.77, P = 0.0004) than did the subgroup of patients who were between discharge and 45 days.

CONCLUSION

Compared with patients in the SCR group, patients in the ICR group had decreased MACEs, MI, and UIDR, especially between discharge and 45 days. All-cause mortality and CVD incidence were not significantly different between the two groups.

Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

A strategy of complete revascularization (CR) is recommended in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). However, the optimal timing of CR remains equivocal. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate CR (ICR) with staged CR in patients with ACS and MVD. Our primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. All outcomes were assessed at 3 time points: in-hospital or at 30 days, at 6 months to 1 year, and at >1 year. Data were pooled in RevMan 5.4 using risk ratios as the effect measure. A total of 9 RCTs (7,506 patients) were included in our review. A total of 7 trials enrolled patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 1 enrolled patients with non-STEMI only, and 1 enrolled patients with all types of ACS. There was no difference between ICR and staged CR regarding all-cause and cardiovascular mortality at any time window. ICR reduced the rate of myocardial infarction and decreased the rate of repeat revascularization at 6 months and beyond. The rates of cerebrovascular events and stent thrombosis were similar between the 2 groups. In conclusion, the present meta-analysis demonstrated a lower rate of myocardial infarction and a reduction in repeat revascularization at and after 6 months with ICR strategy in patients with mainly STEMI and MVD. The 2 groups had no difference in the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Further RCTs are needed to provide more definitive conclusions and investigate CR strategies in other ACS.

Immediate versus staged complete revascularization in acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines recommend a complete revascularization (CR) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). However, its optimal timing is unclear. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes following immediate versus staged CR in ACS.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were searched until March 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate versus staged CR. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) at the longest follow-up. Secondary outcomes were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), any unplanned revascularization, target-vessel revascularization (TVR), and stent thrombosis. Safety outcomes were major bleeding, contrast volume, procedure duration, and length of hospitalization.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included (3559 patients, weighted mean follow-up 12.5 months). There were no differences in the primary endpoint (OR 0.74, 95%CI: 0.54-1.01) and in the secondary endpoints of death, and stent thrombosis between the two CR strategies. Immediate CR was associated with a lower risk of recurrent MI (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.76), any unplanned revascularization (OR 0.59, 95%CI: 0.43-0.80), and TVR (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45-0.84) compared to staged CR. Immediate CR was also associated with lower total contrast volume and shorter total procedure duration and hospitalization length compared to staged CR without differences in major bleedings.

CONCLUSION

No difference was found between immediate and staged CR regarding MACE, or deaths rates at one year. Immediate CR may be associated with a lower risk of recurrent MI and unplanned coronary revascularization than staged CR.