Complete revascularisation by percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease: an updated meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized trials
File(s)JAHA.119.015263.pdf (1.68 MB)
Published version
Author(s)
Ahmad, yousif
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Background
For patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease, the optimal treatment of the non‐infarct‐related artery has been controversial. This up‐to‐date meta‐analysis focusing on individual clinical end points was performed to further evaluate the benefit of complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease.
Methods and Results
We systematically identified all randomized trials comparing complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention to culprit‐only revascularization for multivessel disease in STEMI and performed a random‐effects meta‐analysis. The primary efficacy end point was cardiovascular death analyzed on an intention‐to‐treat basis. Secondary end points included all‐cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization. Ten studies (7542 patients) were included: 3664 patients were randomized to complete revascularization and 3878 to culprit‐only revascularization. Across all patients, complete revascularization was superior to culprit‐only revascularization for reduction in the risk of cardiovascular death (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47–0.98; P=0.037; I2=21.8%) and reduction in the risk of myocardial infarction (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54–0.79; P<0.0001; I2=0.0%). Complete revascularization also significantly reduced the risk of unplanned revascularization (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.28–0.51; P<0.0001; I2=64.7%). The difference in all‐cause mortality with percutaneous coronary intervention was not statistically significant (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.69–1.04; P=0.108; I2=0.0%).
Conclusions
For patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention significantly improves hard clinical outcomes including cardiovascular death and myocardial infarction. These data have implications for clinical practice guidelines regarding recommendations for complete revascularization following STEMI.
For patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease, the optimal treatment of the non‐infarct‐related artery has been controversial. This up‐to‐date meta‐analysis focusing on individual clinical end points was performed to further evaluate the benefit of complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease.
Methods and Results
We systematically identified all randomized trials comparing complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention to culprit‐only revascularization for multivessel disease in STEMI and performed a random‐effects meta‐analysis. The primary efficacy end point was cardiovascular death analyzed on an intention‐to‐treat basis. Secondary end points included all‐cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization. Ten studies (7542 patients) were included: 3664 patients were randomized to complete revascularization and 3878 to culprit‐only revascularization. Across all patients, complete revascularization was superior to culprit‐only revascularization for reduction in the risk of cardiovascular death (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47–0.98; P=0.037; I2=21.8%) and reduction in the risk of myocardial infarction (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54–0.79; P<0.0001; I2=0.0%). Complete revascularization also significantly reduced the risk of unplanned revascularization (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.28–0.51; P<0.0001; I2=64.7%). The difference in all‐cause mortality with percutaneous coronary intervention was not statistically significant (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.69–1.04; P=0.108; I2=0.0%).
Conclusions
For patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention significantly improves hard clinical outcomes including cardiovascular death and myocardial infarction. These data have implications for clinical practice guidelines regarding recommendations for complete revascularization following STEMI.
Date Issued
2020-06-01
Date Acceptance
2020-05-04
Citation
Journal of the American Heart Association, 2020, 9 (12), pp.1-83
ISSN
2047-9980
Publisher
Wiley
Start Page
1
End Page
83
Journal / Book Title
Journal of the American Heart Association
Volume
9
Issue
12
Copyright Statement
© 2020 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Identifier
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.119.015263
Subjects
ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction
percutaneous coronary intervention
revascularization
1102 Cardiorespiratory Medicine and Haematology
Publication Status
Published
Date Publish Online
2020-06-01