FFR- Versus Angiography-Guided Revascularization for Nonculprit Stenosis in STEMI and Multivessel Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis

Complete revascularization versus culprit-lesion only PCI in patients with NSTEMI and multivessel disease - Design and rationale of the randomized COMPLETE-NSTEMI trial

BACKGROUND

Multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) is present in 30% to 70% of patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) depending on varying age and risk profiles. In contrast to the STEMI cohort, there is only limited scientific evidence derived from randomized controlled trials directing the general decision for or against complete revascularization in the NSTEMI population.

PRIMARY HYPOTHESIS

The COMPLETE-NSTEMI trial aims to investigate whether multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is superior over culprit-lesion only PCI in patients with NSTEMI and multivessel CAD.

DESIGN

COMPLETE-NSTEMI is a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter, parallel group, open-label trial. It will enroll 3390 NSTEMI patients with multivessel CAD at 65 to 70 sites in Germany and Austria. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to either complete revascularization with PCI or culprit lesion-only PCI.

ENDPOINTS

The primary efficacy endpoint is a composite of cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for nonfatal myocardial infarction during follow-up. The trial is event-driven and will be stopped as soon as 578 primary endpoint events and a minimal follow-up duration of 12 months for each patient are reached.

CURRENT STATUS

The first patient was enrolled at October 27, 2023. By April 2025, 51 sites have been activated and >500 patients have been randomized. Completion of recruitment is expected for the first half of 2027. The final results of the primary endpoint are expected in 2028.

OUTLOOK

COMPLETE NSTEMI will be the first dedicated trial to answer the question about the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with NSTEMI and multivessel CAD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT05786131.

Diagnostic Performance of Quantitative Flow Ratio for the Assessment of Non-Culprit Lesions in Myocardial Infarction (QFR-OUTSMART): Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) analysis is a simple and non-invasive coronary physiological assessment method with evidence for evaluating stable coronary artery disease with correlation to fractional flow reserve (FFR). However, there is no evidence to recommend its use in non-culprit lesions (NCLs) in myocardial infarction (MI).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using the PRISMA and PROSPERO statements. The study's primary objective was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of QFR in identifying functionally significant NCLs after MI based on invasive FFR and non-hyperemic pressure ratios as references. We obtained values of the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). We performed a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis for each study's impact on the overall effect.

RESULTS

We included eight studies, with 713 patients and 920 vessels evaluated with QFR. The overall AUC was 0.941 (I2 = 0.559, p < 0.002), with a sensitivity of 87.3%, a specificity of 89.4%, a PPV of 86.6%, and an NPV of 90.1%. Compared to FFR, we found an AUC of 0.957 (I2 = 0.331, p < 0.194), a sensitivity of 89.6%, a specificity of 89.8%, a PPV of 88.3%, and an NPV of 91%. The sensitivity analysis showed a similar diagnostic performance in both studies.

CONCLUSIONS

QFR is effective in analyzing NCLs with a significant diagnostic yield compared to FFR, with an excellent AUC in MI patients. Performing prospective multicenter studies to characterize this population and reproduce our results is essential.

Physiology-Versus Angiography-Guided Complete Coronary Revascularization in STEMI Patients with Multivessel Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD), complete revascularization (CR) is recommended over culprit-only PCI to reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes. However, the optimal strategy for CR, whether angiography (Angio)-guided or physiology-guided, remains uncertain. Methods: This network meta-analysis included 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 11,568 patients to compare the efficacy of angio-guided CR, physiology-guided CR, and culprit-only PCI in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular (CV) death, and unplanned revascularization. The frequentist and Bayesian approaches were applied to assess the effectiveness of each strategy. Results: The pairwise meta-analysis showed that angio-guided CR showed superior efficacy, significantly reducing MACE (OR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.37-0.52), recurrent myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization compared to culprit-only PCI. Physiology-guided CR also reduced MACE (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.45-0.91) and unplanned revascularization. The network metanalysis showed that CV death was lower in the physiology-guided CR group (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.25-1.05), suggesting a protective effect, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. Furthermore, physiology-guided CR was not significantly better than angio-guided CR in most outcomes. Conclusions: Angio-guided CR appears to provide the best overall outcomes for patients with STEMI and MVD, outperforming physiology-guided CR in most endpoints. Further large-scale trials are needed to clarify the relative efficacy of angio-guided CR and physiology-guided CR in this patient population.

Complete versus culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is commonly performed for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) in the elderly. Complete revascularization has been shown to benefit the general population, yet its safety and efficacy in older patients are uncertain.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing complete versus culprit-only PCI in patients ≥65 years old with ACS and MVD. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), ischemia-driven revascularization (IDR), all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. Data were pooled using a random effects model with a restricted maximum likelihood estimator to generate risk ratios (RRs).

RESULTS

Five RCTs with 4105 patients aged ≥65 years were included. Compared with culprit-only PCI, complete revascularization reduced MI (RR 0.65; 95 % CI 0.49-0.85; p < 0.01). MACE (RR 0.75; 95 % CI 0.54-1.05; p = 0.09) and IDR (RR 0.41; 95 % CI 0.16-1.04; p = 0.06) were not significantly different between both strategies among those aged ≥65. However, there was a significant reduction in MI (RR 0.69; 95 % CI 0.49-0.96; p-value = 0.03), MACE (RR 0.78; 95 % CI 0.65-0.94; p < 0.01), and IDR (RR 0.60; 95 % CI 0.41-0.89; p < 0.01) in those aged ≥75.

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly patients aged ≥65 years with ACS and MVD, a strategy of complete revascularization by PCI reduces MI compared to culprit-only PCI with no significant difference in MACE and IDR. However, complete revascularization reduced MI, MACE, and IDR in those aged ≥75 years suggesting a possible benefit in this age group.

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.

Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularization for Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

The comparative outcomes with immediate, staged in-hospital, and staged out-of-hospital complete revascularization for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease remain unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An electronic search of MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases was performed through August 2023 for randomized trials evaluating immediate, staged in-hospital, and staged out-of-hospital complete revascularization for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). The final analysis included 9 trials with 4270 patients. The weighted follow-up duration was 13.8 months. On pairwise meta-analysis, there were no statistically significant differences between immediate versus staged nonculprit percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in MACEs (odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.54-1.16]). Network meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference in MACEs with staged in-hospital nonculprit PCI (odds ratio, 1.29-[95% CI, 0.91-1.82]) compared with immediate nonculprit PCI, while there were higher odds of MACEs with out-of-hospital nonculprit PCI (odds ratio, 1.67-[95% CI, 1.21-2.30]) compared with immediate nonculprit PCI. Compared with immediate nonculprit PCI, there were higher odds of ischemia-driven repeat revascularization with staged out-of-hospital nonculprit PCI (odds ratio, 2.26-[95% CI, 1.37-3.72]), but not with in-hospital staged nonculprit PCI. There were no significant differences for the other outcomes among the 3 strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease, an immediate nonculprit PCI approach was associated with similar clinical outcomes to the staged nonculprit PCI approach. The staged out-of-hospital nonculprit PCI approach was associated with a higher incidence of MACEs compared with the other strategies, which was driven by higher risk for ischemia-driven repeat revascularization.

Case report: acute myocarditis in two patients with coronary artery disease presenting with chest pain-thinking outside the box

Background

In a subset of patients, acute myocarditis (AM) may mimic acute myocardial infarction, with a similar clinical presentation characterized by chest pain, electrocardiogram (ECG) changes consistent with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), and serum markers increment.

Case summary

We present two cases of infarct-like myocarditis in patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD), in which the discrepancy between transthoracic echocardiogram findings, ECG, and angiography prompted us to look beyond the simplest diagnosis. In these cases, making a prompt and correct diagnosis is pivotal to address adequate therapy and establish a correct prognosis.

Discussion

The right diagnosis can avoid unnecessary coronary revascularizations and subsequent antiplatelet therapy that may be associated with an increased haemorrhagic risk. Moreover, it allows setting up guideline-directed therapy for myocarditis, proper follow-up, as well as recommending abstention from physical activity.

The role of physiology in the contemporary management of coronary artery disease

Coronary physiology assessment, including epicardial and microvascular investigations, is a fundamental tool in the contemporary management of patients with coronary artery disease. Coronary revascularisation guided by functional evaluation has demonstrated superiority over angiography-only-guided treatment. In patients with chronic coronary syndrome, revascularisation did not demonstrate prognostic advantage in terms of mortality over optimal medical therapy (OMT). However, revascularisation of coronary stenosis, which induces myocardial ischaemia, has demonstrated better outcome than OMT alone. Pressure wire (PW) or angiography-based longitudinal coronary physiology provides a point-by-point analysis of the vessel to detect the atherosclerotic pattern of coronary disease. A careful evaluation of this disease pattern allows clinicians to choose the appropriate management strategy.Patients with diffuse disease showed a twofold risk of residual angina after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than those with focal disease. Therefore, OMT alone or coronary artery bypass graft might be considered over PCI. In addition, the post-PCI physiological assessment aims to optimise the result revealing residual myocardial ischaemia. Improvement in post-PCI PW or angiography-based functional indices has been associated with better quality of life and reduced risk of cardiac events and residual angina. Therefore, the information obtained from coronary physiology allows for an optimised treatment strategy, which ultimately leads to improve patient's prognosis and quality of life. This review provides an overview of the latest available evidence in the literature regarding the use of functional assessment of epicardial coronary stenosis in different settings in the contemporary patient-tailored management of coronary disease.

Complete Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization in Acute Coronary Syndromes With Multivessel Coronary Disease: A Systematic Review

Multivessel disease (MVD) affects approximately 50% of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and is significantly burdened by poor outcomes and high mortality. It represents a clinical challenge in patient management and decision making and subtends an evolving research area related to the pathophysiology of unstable plaques and local or systemic inflammation. The benefits of complete revascularization are established in hemodynamically stable ACS patients with MVD, and guidelines provide some reference points to inform clinical practice, based on an evidence level that is solid for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and less robust for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. However, several areas of uncertainty remain, such as the optimal timing for complete revascularization or the best guiding strategy for intermediate stenoses. We performed a systematic review of current evidence in the field of percutaneous revascularization in ACS and MVD, also including future perspectives from ongoing trials that will directly compare different timing strategies and investigate the role of invasive and noninvasive guidance techniques. (Complete percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease; CRD42022383123).

Management of Residual Risk in Chronic Coronary Syndromes. Clinical Pathways for a Quality-Based Secondary Prevention

Chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), which encompasses a broad spectrum of clinical presentations of coronary artery disease (CAD), is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Recent guidelines for the management of CCS emphasize the dynamic nature of the CAD process, replacing the term "stable" with "chronic", as this disease is never truly "stable". Despite significant advances in the treatment of CAD, patients with CCS remain at an elevated risk of major cardiovascular events (MACE) due to the so-called residual cardiovascular risk. Several pathogenetic pathways (thrombotic, inflammatory, metabolic, and procedural) may distinctly contribute to the residual risk in individual patients and represent a potential target for newer preventive treatments. Identifying the level and type of residual cardiovascular risk is essential for selecting the most appropriate diagnostic tests and follow-up procedures. In addition, new management strategies and healthcare models could further support available treatments and lead to important prognostic benefits. This review aims to provide an overview of the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in the management of patients with CCS and to promote more effective multidisciplinary care.

Fractional flow reserve use in coronary artery revascularization: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is recommended in revascularization guidelines for intermediate lesions. However, recent studies comparing FFR-guided PCI with non-physiology-guided revascularization have reported conflicting results. PubMed and Embase were searched for studies comparing FFR-guided PCI with non-physiology-guided revascularization strategies (angiography-guided, intracoronary imaging-guided, coronary artery bypass grafting). Data were pooled by meta-analysis using random-effects model. 26 studies enrolling 78,897 patients were included. FFR-guided PCI as compared to non-physiology-guided coronary revascularization had lower risk of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.79 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.99, I² = 53%) and myocardial infarction (MI) (OR 0.74 95% CI 0.59-0.93, I² = 44.7%). However, no differences between groups were found in terms of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (OR 0.86 95% CI 0.72-1.03, I² = 72.3%) and repeat revascularization (OR 1 95% CI 0.82-1.20, I² = 43.2%). Among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), FFR-guided PCI as compared to non-physiology-guided revascularization was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and MI.

Timing and modality of complete revascularization in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease

Approximately half of the patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction have also significant atherosclerotic disease affecting coronary segments other than the infarct-related artery. Optimal management of residual lesions in this clinical setting has been a topic of intense research in the last decade. On the one hand, a large body of evidence has consistently shown the benefit of complete revascularization for the reduction of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. On the other hand, some crucial aspects such as the optimal timing or the best strategy of the complete treatment approach remain a matter of controversy. In this review, we aim to provide a thorough critical appraisal of the available literature regarding this topic, by discussing areas of relative certainty, gaps in the knowledge, approach to specific clinical subsets and future research directions.

Complete revascularization in acute myocardial infarction: a clinical review

In patients with ST segment elevation and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (MI), multivessel (MV) coronary artery disease is found in approximately 50%, leading to worse clinical outcomes. Recent data have suggested that complete revascularization with MV percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events as compared to culprit vessel-only revascularization. However, the optimal timing of MV intervention, appropriate non-culprit lesion assessment, and the best revascularization strategy in specific subsets such as cardiogenic shock remain to be established. This review article summarizes current evidence on revascularization strategies in patients with acute MI and MV disease.

Treatment strategies of acute myocardial infarction: updates on revascularization, pharmacological therapy, and beyond

Owing to recent advances in early reperfusion strategies, pharmacological therapy, standardized care, and the identification of vulnerable patient subsets, the prognosis of acute myocardial infarction has improved. However, there is still considerable room for improvement. This review article summarizes the latest evidence concerning clinical diagnosis and treatment of acute myocardial infarction.

Coronary angiography- or fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization in multivessel disease STEMI: A Bayesian hierarchical network meta-analysis

AIMS

To identify the best strategy to achieve complete revascularization (CR) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multi-vessel disease (MVD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We systematically reviewed the literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IRA-only PCI and CR guided by angiography or fractional flow reserve (FFR) in MVD-STEMI. Both frequentist (classical) and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed, including a comparative hierarchy estimation of the probability to reduce the primary composite endpoint of all-cause death and new myocardial infarction (MI). We identified 11 RCTs, including 8193 STEMI patients. Compared with IRA-only strategy, CR significantly reduced the primary endpoint (OR: 0.73; 95%CI0.55-0.97). We observed non-significant difference between angiography and FFR guidance in reducing the primary endpoint (OR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.35-1.57). The Bayesian probability analysis ranked angio-guided CR as the best intervention yielding lowest risk of all-cause death or new MI (SUCRA92%).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with MVD-STEMI, CR is associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality and new MI compared with IRA-only PCI. Angio-guided CR is associated with the lowest risk of all-cause death or new MI, therefore the role of FFR-guidance in this setting is questionable.

CONDENSED ABSTRACT

Both frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed to compare infarct-related artery (IRA)-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and complete revascularization (CR) guided by angiography or fractional flow reserve (FFR) in multivessel disease (MVD) and acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Eleven randomized controlled trials were identified, including 8193 STEMI patients. Compared with IRA-only strategy, CR significantly reduced the incidence of the composite endpoint of all-cause death and new myocardial infarction without significant difference in angio-guided and FFR-guided CR. The Bayesian probability analysis ranked angio-guided CR as the best intervention yielding lowest risk of the composite endpoint and, therefore the role of FFR-guidance in this setting is questionable.

Screening for atrial fibrillation in the elderly: A network meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the optimal screening strategy for atrial fibrillation (AF) have yielded conflicting results.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the comparative efficacy of different AF screening strategies in older adults.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane without language restrictions through January 2022, for RCTs evaluating the outcomes of non-invasive AF screening approaches among adults ≥65 years. We conducted a pairwise meta-analysis comparing any AF screening approach versus no screening, and a network meta-analysis comparing systematic screening versus opportunistic screening versus no screening. The primary outcome was new AF detection.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 9 RCTs with 85,209 patients. The weighted median follow-up was 12 months. The mean age was 73.4 years and men represented 45.6%. On pairwise meta-analysis, any AF screening (either systematic or opportunistic) was associated with higher AF detection (1.8% vs. 1.3%; risk ratio [RR] 2.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-3.65) and initiation of oral anticoagulation (RR 3.26; 95%CI 1.15-9.23), compared with no screening. There was no significant difference between any AF screening versus no screening in all-cause mortality (RR 0.97; 95%CI 0.93-1.01) or acute cerebrovascular accident (CVA) (RR 0.92; 95%CI 0.84-1.01). On network meta-analysis, only systematic screening was associated with higher AF detection (RR 2.73; 95% CI 1.62-4.59) and initiation of oral anticoagulation (RR 5.67; 95% CI 2.68-11.99), but not with the opportunistic screening, compared with no screening.

CONCLUSION

Systematic AF screening using non-invasive tools was associated with higher rate of new AF detection and initiation of OAC, but opportunistic screening was not associated with higher detection rates. There were no significant differences between the various AF screening approaches with respect to rates of all-cause mortality or CVA events. However, these analyses are likely underpowered and future RCTs are needed to examine the impact of systematic AF screening on mortality and CVA outcomes.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography alone in guiding myocardial revascularisation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Randomised trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided versus angiography-guided revascularisation among patients with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) have yielded mixed results.

AIMS

To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided revascularisation among patients with obstructive CAD.

METHODS

An electronic search of MEDLINE, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases without language restrictions was performed through November 2021 for randomised controlled trials that evaluated the outcomes of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided revascularisation. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The final analysis included seven trials with 5094 patients. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 38 months. Compared with angiography guidance, FFR guidance was associated with fewer number of stents during revascularisation (standardised mean difference=-0.80; 95% CI -1.33 to -0.27), but no difference in total hospital cost. There was no difference between FFR-guided and angiography-guided revascularisation in long-term MACE (13.6% vs 13.9%; risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.11). Meta-regression analyses did not reveal any evidence of effect modification for MACE with acute coronary syndrome (p=0.36), proportion of three-vessel disease (p=0.88) or left main disease (p=0.50). There were no differences between FFR-guided and angiography-guided revascularisation in the outcomes all-cause mortality (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.68), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.26), repeat revascularisation (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21), recurrent myocardial infarction (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14) or stent thrombosis (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.21).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with obstructive CAD, FFR-guided revascularisation did not reduce the risk of long-term adverse cardiac events or the individual outcomes. However, FFR-guided revascularisation was associated with fewer number of stents.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021291596.

The optimal timing for non-culprit percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: A pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background and aims

Recently, several randomized trials have shown that patients with multivessel disease (MVD) often pursue complete revascularization during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to improve their prognosis. However, the optimal time for the non-culprit artery has been controversial. This study aimed to determine the optimal strategy for revascularization in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing three revascularization strategies [i.e., complete revascularization at the index procedure (CR), complete revascularization as a staged procedure (SR), or culprit-only revascularization (COR)] in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were included. We performed both pairwise and network meta-analyses. Network meta-analysis was performed using mixed treatment comparison models.

Results

17 trials with 8568 patients were included. In the network meta-analysis, the most interesting finding was that staged revascularization increased the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) compared with complete revascularization at the index procedure [odds ratio (OR): 1.93; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07–3.49]. In the pairwise meta-analysis, complete revascularization reduced the incidence of MACE [risk ratio (RR): 0.62, 95% CI: 0.48–0.79, p &lt; 0.001], mainly because it reduced the probability of unplanned repeat revascularization (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.33–0.75, p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, or nonfatal re-myocardial infarction (MI).

Conclusion

Our analysis suggests that complete revascularization should be performed in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, and complete revascularization at the index procedure is superior to staged revascularization in reducing the risk of MACE events.