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

Meta-Analysis Comparing Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularization for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Multivessel Disease

Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) frequently present with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention, and the optimal timing of complete revascularization (CR) in these cases remains uncertain. This study aims to assess major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and procedural complications in patients with STEMI with multivessel CAD who underwent immediate (index procedure) versus staged CR. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing immediate to staged CR in STEMI and multivessel CAD. Trials were identified by way of a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Libraries from database inception to March 6, 2024. The data were analyzed using the RevMan software. A total of 5 randomized controlled trials (n = 1,415) were included in our study, which showed no significant differences in MACEs (13.3% vs 9.8%, relative risk [RR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62 to 1.83), all-cause mortality (3% vs 4.55%, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.21), or myocardial infarction (4.5% vs 2.6%, RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.55) at a weighted mean follow-up duration of 16 months. However, the staged group had a higher rate of unplanned revascularization (8.6% vs 4.4%, RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.04). In conclusion, in patients with STEMI with multivessel CAD, at a mean follow-up of approximately 1.3 years, there is no significant difference in immediate versus staged revascularization (SR) for MACEs; however, SR was associated with a significantly higher incidence of unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization. SR within the index hospitalization may be as effective as immediate CR; further trials are needed to confirm this. Condensed Abstract We conducted a meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials comparing immediate to staged complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel coronary artery disease. There was no significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, and myocardial infarction rates between immediate and staged complete revascularization. However, staged revascularization was associated with a higher incidence of unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization.

Timing of multivessel revascularization in stable patients with STEMI: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) is recommended in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) without cardiogenic shock. The present network meta-analysis investigated the optimal timing of MV-PCI in this context.

METHODS

We pooled the aggregated data from randomized trials investigating stable STEMI patients with multivessel CAD treated with a strategy of either MV-PCI or culprit vessel-only PCI. The primary outcome was all-cause death. The main secondary outcomes were cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization.

RESULTS

Among 11 trials, a total of 10 507 patients were randomly assigned to MV-PCI (same sitting, n=1683; staged during the index hospitalization, n=3460; staged during a subsequent hospitalization within 45 days, n=3275) or to culprit vessel-only PCI (n=2089). The median follow-up was 18.6 months. In comparison with culprit vessel-only PCI, MV-PCI staged during the index hospitalization significantly reduced all-cause death (risk ratio, 0.73; 95%CI, 0.56-0.92; P=.008) and ranked as possibly the best treatment option for this outcome compared with all other strategies. In comparison with culprit vessel-only PCI, a MV-PCI reduced cardiovascular mortality without differences dependent on the timing of revascularization. MV-PCI within the index hospitalization, either in a single procedure or staged, significantly reduced myocardial infarction and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, with no significant difference between each other.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD without cardiogenic shock, multivessel PCI within the index hospitalization, either in a single procedure or staged, represents the safest and most efficacious approach. The different timings of multivessel PCI did not result in any significant differences in all-cause death. This study is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023457794).

Timing of Complete Multivessel Revascularization in Acute Coronary Syndrome: 2-Year Results of the BIOVASC Study

BACKGROUND

In patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and multivessel coronary disease, immediate complete revascularization was noninferior to staged complete revascularization for the primary composite outcome at 1 year. The authors report clinical outcomes at 2 years of follow-up.

METHODS

Patients with ACS and multivessel coronary disease were randomly assigned to immediate complete revascularization or to staged complete revascularization at 29 sites in Europe. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, any unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, and cerebrovascular event.

RESULTS

In total, 764 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to the immediate complete revascularization arm and 761 to the staged complete revascularization arm. Two-year follow-up was complete for 97.6% of patients. At 2 years, the primary outcome had occurred in 12.5% of patients in the immediate complete revascularization group and 12.4% of patients in the staged complete revascularization group (HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.73-1.30; P = 0.88). Myocardial infarction occurred more frequently in the staged complete revascularization group (6.2% vs 3.8%; HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.37-0.96; P = 0.032). In the immediate complete revascularization and staged complete revascularization groups, the rates of all-cause mortality (3.3% vs 2.0%; HR: 1.67; 95% CI: 0.88-3.16; P = 0.12), any unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (7.0% vs 7.9%; HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60-1.26; P = 0.57), and cerebrovascular event (2.5% vs 1.7%; HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.68-2.83; P = 0.37) were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ACS and multivessel disease, there was no significant difference between immediate complete revascularization and staged complete revascularization with respect to the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, any unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, and cerebrovascular event at 2 years. Immediate complete revascularization was associated with a significant reduction in myocardial infarction, mainly due to fewer early events. (Direct Complete Versus Staged Complete Revascularization in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndromes and Multivessel Disease [BioVasc]; NCT03621501).

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.

Precision Medicine in Acute Coronary Syndromes

Nowadays, current guidelines on acute coronary syndrome (ACS) provide recommendations mainly based on the clinical presentation. However, greater attention is being directed to the specific pathophysiology underlying ACS, considering that plaque destabilization and rupture leading to luminal thrombotic obstruction is not the only pathway involved, albeit the most recognized. In this review, we discuss how intracoronary imaging and biomarkers allow the identification of specific ACS endotypes, leading to the recognition of different prognostic implications, tailored management strategies, and new potential therapeutic targets. Furthermore, different strategies can be applied on a personalized basis regarding antithrombotic therapy, non-culprit lesion revascularization, and microvascular obstruction (MVO). With respect to myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA), we will present a precision medicine approach, suggested by current guidelines as the mainstay of the diagnostic process and with relevant therapeutic implications. Moreover, we aim at illustrating the clinical implications of targeted strategies for ACS secondary prevention, which may lower residual risk in selected patients.

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.