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

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 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.

Meta-analysis of immediate complete vs staged complete revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown varying results between immediate and staged complete percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). We conducted a meta-analysis to reconcile the findings.

METHODS

Online databases were searched for RCTs comparing immediate vs staged complete PCI in patients presenting with ACS. The outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death, stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularization (TVR), cerebrovascular events, bleeding and acute kidney injury (AKI)/contrast induced nephropathy (CIN). Risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs with a total of 3637 patients - 1821 in the immediate PCI group and 1816 in the staged PCI group, were included. The mean age was 64 years, 78 % of patients were men and the mean duration of follow up was 1 year. As compared with staged complete PCI, the immediate PCI group was associated with significant reduction of MI (RR 0.53, 95 % CI 0.36-0.77) and TVR (RR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.53-0.90). The risks of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, MACE, cerebrovascular events, stent thrombosis, bleeding and AKI/CIN were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In ACS patients selected for complete revascularization strategy, multivessel PCI during the index procedure may be associated with significant reduction in the risk of MI and TVR without harm when compared with a staged PCI strategy.

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.

Propensity Matched Comparison of Clinical Outcome After Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease

Complete revascularization (CR) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD) improves clinical outcomes compared with culprit-only revascularization, but the optimal timing for non-culprit lesions treatment remains unclear. This study evaluated patients presenting with ACS and MVD admitted between January 2015 and September 2021 at the Erasmus University Medical Center. Clinical outcomes were compared between immediate and staged CR in terms of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and any unplanned revascularization. A total of 1,400 patients presenting with ACS and MVD who underwent immediate or staged CR were included in this study. Using 1/many propensity score matching without replacement, 299 patients in the staged CR group were matched to 598 patients in the immediate CR group (mean 1:2 ratio), rendering a total of 897 patients for analysis. The median follow-up period was 648 days. MACCE rate was significantly higher in the staged CR group than in the immediate CR group (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.60 [1.05 to 2.45], p = 0.03). Furthermore, number of stents, stent length, and contrast usage were significantly greater in the staged revascularization group. Immediate CR was associated with less risk of MACCE than was staged CR. Staged CR required overall more contrast and stent material.

Effect of implantable cardioverter defibrillator on primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in high-risk patients

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) on primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with high risk.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included 70 patients who received primary prevention of SCD by ICD implantation in Huzhou Central Hospital from March 2016 to May 2019. Based on survival, 15 patients who died during follow-up were placed into the death group and the 55 patients who survived were set as the survival group. The two groups were compared in terms of sex, age, non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), diastolic pressure, systolic pressure, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), urea nitrogen, serum creatinine, history of diabetes, history of atrial fibrillation, history of myocardial ischemia, history of dilated cardiomyopathy, history of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, type I Brugada wave and cardiac function classification. Further, we analyzed the proportion of discharge, the survival of patients (Kaplan Meier method), and the risk factors of patient death (Logistic regression).

RESULTS

The analysis of baseline data showed that patients in the death group had older age and higher level of serum creatinine than the survival group (P<0.05), and the number of patients with non-sustained VT≥5 times/24 h in the survival group was higher than that in the death group (P<0.05). There was no obvious difference in other baseline indexes between the two groups (P>0.05). In addition, there was no difference in the proportion of patients receiving appropriate/inappropriate discharge (P>0.05) between the two groups. Follow-up data showed that 15 cases (21.43%) of spontaneous VT/ventricular fibrillation events were correctly diagnosed by pacemakers and properly treated by ICD (discharge or antitachycardia pacing (ATP)), while 55 cases (78.57%) received inappropriate ICD treatment. There were 15 patients (21.43%) who died during follow up, including 6 cases of cardiac insufficiency, 1 case of SCD, 2 cases of acute myocardial infarction, 1 case of respiratory failure, and 5 cases of unknown etiology; the survival time was (20.27±7.06) months. Logistic regression analysis showed that age and serum creatinine were the risk factors of patient death.

CONCLUSION

Primary prevention with ICD implantation benefits SCD patients. Non persistent VT≥5 times/24 h is a predictive value for ICD implantation in patients receiving primary prevention of SCD. Age and serum creatinine are risk factors for death.