Early Complete Revascularization in Hemodynamically Stable Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease

Effects of patient characteristics on the efficacy of complete revascularization for treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the efficacy of complete vs culprit-only revascularization for treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multivessel disease. However, the efficacy of complete revascularization vs culprit-only revascularization in some STEMI patient subgroups remains unclear.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase for related RCTs from the start date of databases to January 3, 2020. The endpoint assessed in this meta-analysis was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted stratified by each of the 5 factors of interest (i.e., sex, age, history of diabetes, ECG infarct location, and the number of arteries with stenosis) to estimate pooled hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval. Random-effects meta-regression was conducted to assess subgroup differences. We examined publication bias by drawing funnel plots and performing Egger test. This meta-analysis is reported according to the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included for pooled analysis. Compared with culprit-only revascularization, complete revascularization significantly reduced the risk of MACE (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.42-0.55; I2 = 0%; P for relative effect < .001). This significant reduction in the risk of MACE exhibited by complete revascularization was observed in most of the subgroups of interest. All of the subgroup effects based on the 5 factors of interest were not statistically significant (Psubgroup ranged from 0.198 to 0.556). Publication bias was not suggested by funnel plots and Egger test.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with culprit-only revascularization, complete revascularization significantly reduces the MACE risk in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, which is independent of sex, age, history of diabetes, ECG infarct location, and the number of arteries with stenosis.

Complete revascularization reduces cardiovascular death in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

AIMS

The aim of this work was to investigate the prognostic impact of revascularization of non-culprit lesions in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease by performing a meta-analysis of available randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from six RCTs comparing complete vs. culprit-only revascularization in STEMI patients with multivessel disease were analysed with random effect generic inverse variance method meta-analysis. The endpoints were expressed as hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary outcome was cardiovascular death. Main secondary outcomes of interest were all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and repeated coronary revascularization. Overall, 6528 patients were included (3139 complete group, 3389 culprit-only group). After a follow-up ranging between 1 and 3 years (median 2 years), cardiovascular death was significantly reduced in the group receiving complete revascularization (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.97, I2 = 29%). The number needed to treat to prevent one cardiovascular death was 70 (95% CI 36-150). The secondary endpoints MI and revascularization were also significantly reduced (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.84, I2 = 0% and HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.22-0.38, I2 = 36%, respectively). Needed to treats were 45 (95% CI 37-55) for MI and 8 (95% CI 5-13) for revascularization. All-cause death (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.56-1.16, I2 = 27%) was not affected by the revascularization strategy.

CONCLUSION

In a selected study population of STEMI patients with multivessel disease, a complete revascularization strategy is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular death. This reduction is concomitant with that of MI and the need of repeated revascularization.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Culprit-Only Versus Complete Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients with concomitant multivessel coronary artery disease is associated with poor prognosis. We sought to determine the merits of percutaneous coronary intervention of the culprit-only revascularization (COR) compared with multivessel revascularization (MVR) approach. Multiple databases were queried to identify relevant articles. Data were analyzed using a random-effect model to calculate unadjusted odds ratio (OR) and relative risk. A total of 28 studies comprising 26,892 patients, 18,377 in the COR and 8,515 in the MVR group were included. The mean age of patients was 63 years, comprising 72% of male patients. The baseline characteristics of the 2 treatment groups were comparable. On a median follow-up of 1-year, COR was associated with a significantly higher odds of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; OR 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10 to 1.70, p = 0.005), angina (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.83 to 2.85, p ≤ 0.00001) and revascularization (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.54, p = 0.002) compared with patients undergoing MVR for STEMI. The all-cause mortality (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.53, p = 0.22), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.72, p = 0.07), rate of heart failure (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.59, p = 0.31), need for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.64, p = 0.19), repeat myocardial infarction (MI) events (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.64, p = 0.15) and risk of stroke (OR 1.27 95% CI 0.68 to 2.34, p = 0.45%) were similar between the two groups. A subgroup analysis based on follow-up duration and study design mostly followed the results of the pooled analysis except that the risk of repeat MI events were significantly lower in the MVR group across RCTs (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.94, p = 0.009). In contrast to the culprit-only approach, MVR in patients with STEMI is associated with a significant reduction in MACE, angina and need for revascularization.

Complete revascularization for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction after the COMPLETE trial: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The recently published COMPLETE trial has demonstrated that patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD), who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of both culprit and non-culprit (vs. culprit-only) lesions had a reduced risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), but not of cardiovascular or total mortality. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of complete revascularization on cardiovascular or total mortality reduction using available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including the COMPLETE trial, in hemodynamically stable STEMI patients with MVD.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov databases search identified 10 RCTs of 7033 patients with STEMI and MVD which compared complete (n = 3420) vs. only culprit lesion (n = 3613) PCI for a median 27.7 months follow-up. Random effect risk ratios were used to estimate for efficacy and safety outcomes.

RESULTS

Complete revascularization reduced the risk of MACE (10.4% vs.16.6%; RR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.74, p < 0.0001), CV mortality (2.87% vs. 3.72%; RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.95, p = 0.02), reinfarction (5.1% vs. 7.1%; RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.86, p = 0.002), urgent revascularization (7.92% vs.17.4%; RR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.73, p < 0.001), and CV hospitalization (8.68% vs.11.4%; RR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.44to 0.96, p = 0.03) compared with culprit only revascularization. All-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding events, or contrast induced nephropathy were not affected by the revascularization strategy.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that in patients with STEMI and MVD, complete revascularization is superior to culprit-only PCI in reducing the risk of MACE outcomes, including cardiovascular mortality, without increasing the risk of adverse safety outcomes.