Culprit vessel only vs immediate complete revascularization in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: systematic review and meta-analysis

Complete Revascularization Versus Treatment of the Culprit Artery Only in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Multicenter Registry

BACKGROUND

Data on the management and prognosis of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease are limited in Brazil, showing that the available revascularization strategies should be investigated.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the outcomes of complete revascularization versus treatment of the culprit artery only in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted at two medical centers in southern Brazil with a 1-year follow-up after the index procedure. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, or recurrent angina, while the secondary outcome was stroke, nonfatal cardiac arrest, major bleeding, or need for reintervention. The probability of outcomes occurring was compared between the groups using binary logistic regression. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients were included. Their mean age was 62±12 years, and 61 (71.8%) were male. Fifty-eight (68.2%) were treated with complete revascularization and 27 (31.8%) with incomplete revascularization. The chance of both the primary and secondary outcomes occurring was significantly greater among patients treated with incomplete revascularization when compared to those treated with complete revascularization (odds ratio [OR] 5.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-16.1 vs. OR 5.2, 95% CI 1.2-22.9, respectively), as well as cardiac death (OR 6.4, 95% CI 1.2-35.3).

CONCLUSION

Registry data from two centers in southern Brazil demonstrate that the complete revascularization strategy is associated with a significant reduction in primary and secondary outcomes in a 1-year follow-up when compared to the incomplete revascularization strategy (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 115(2):229-237).

Culprit-only versus multivessel or complete versus incomplete revascularization in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention using newer-generation drug-eluting stents

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The long-term comparative results between culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (C-PCI) and multivessel PCI (M-PCI) or those between complete revascularization (CR) and incomplete revascularization (IR) in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) after successful newer-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation are limited. Therefore, we compared the 2-year clinical outcomes in such patients.

METHODS

A total of 4588 patients with NSTEMI and MVD (C-PCI, n = 2055; M-PCI, n = 2533; CR, n = 2029; IR, n = 504) were evaluated. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) defined as all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction MI, and any repeat coronary revascularization. The secondary outcome was stent thrombosis (ST).

RESULTS

The cumulative incidences of the primary and secondary outcomes were similar in the three comparison groups (C-PCI vs. M-PCI, CR vs. IR, or CR vs. C-PCI). However, the cumulative incidence of non-target vessel revascularization (non-TVR) was higher in the C-PCI group than in the M-PCI group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 2.011; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.942-3.985; p = 0.012), higher in the IR group than in the CR group (aHR: 2.051; 95% CI: 1.216-4.183; p = 0.043), and higher in the C-PCI group than in the CR group (aHR: 2.099; 95% CI: 1.237-3.564; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding the higher cumulative incidence of non-TVR, M-PCI and CR were preferred compared to C-PCI or IR in patients with NSTEMI and MVD. However, further randomized studies are required to confirm these findings.

Complete Versus Culprit-Only Lesion Intervention in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND

A large proportion of patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) present with multivessel disease (MVD). There is uncertainty in the role of complete coronary revascularization in this group of patients.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of complete revascularization compared with culprit vessel-only intervention in a large contemporary cohort of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for NSTEMI.

METHODS

The authors undertook an observational cohort study of 37,491 NSTEMI patients treated between 2005 and 2015 at the 8 heart attack centers in London. Clinical details were recorded at the time of the procedure into local databases using the British Cardiac Intervention Society (BCIS) PCI dataset. A total of 21,857 patients (58.3%) presented with NSTEMI and MVD. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality at a median follow-up of 4.1 years (interquartile range: 2.2 to 5.8 years).

RESULTS

A total of 11,737 (53.7%) patients underwent single-stage complete revascularization during PCI for NSTEMI, rates that significantly increased during the study period (p = 0.006). Those patients undergoing complete revascularization were older and more likely to be male, diabetic, have renal disease and a history of previous myocardial infarction/revascularization compared with the culprit-only revascularization group. Although crude, in-hospital major adverse cardiac event rates were similar (5.2% vs. 4.8%; p = 0.462) between the 2 groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated significant differences in mortality rates between the 2 groups (22.5% complete revascularization vs. 25.9% culprit vessel intervention; p = 0.0005) during the follow-up period. After multivariate Cox analysis (hazard ratio: 0.90; 95% confidence interval: 0.85 to 0.97) and the use of propensity matching (hazard ratio: 0.89; 95% confidence interval: 0.76 to 0.98) complete revascularization was associated with reduced mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In NSTEMI patients with MVD, despite higher initial (in-hospital) mortality rates, single-stage complete coronary revascularization appears to be superior to culprit-only vessel PCI in terms of long-term mortality rates. This supports the need for further randomized study to confirm these findings.

Revascularization Strategies in STEMI with Multivessel Disease: Deciding on Culprit Versus Complete-Ad Hoc or Staged

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review will address the clinical conundrum of those who may derive clinical benefit from complete revascularization of coronary stenosis that are discovered at the time of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The decision to revascularize additional vessels with angiographic stenosis beyond the culprit lesion remains controversial, as does the timing of revascularization.

RECENT FINDINGS

STEMI patients represent a high-risk patient population that have up to a 50% prevalence of multivessel disease. Multivessel disease represents an important risk factor for short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. Potential benefits of multivessel PCI for STEMI might include reduced short- and long-term mortality, revascularization, reduced resource utilization, and costs. Which population will benefit and what the optimal timing of revascularization in the peri-MI period remains controversial. Consideration of multivessel revascularization in the setting of STEMI may occur in up to one half of STEMI patients. Evaluation of the comorbidities including diabetes, extent of myocardium at risk, lesion complexity, ventricular function, and risk factors for complications such as contrast induced nephropathy which is important in determining the appropriate care pathway.

Optimal Timing of Complete Revascularization in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Studies have suggested that complete revascularization is superior to culprit‐only revascularization for the treatment of enzyme‐positive acute coronary syndrome. However, the optimal timing of complete revascularization remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing single‐stage complete revascularization with multistage percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction or non–ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease.

Methods and Results

We systematically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PubMed, and MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials comparing single‐stage complete revascularization with multistage revascularization in patients with enzyme‐positive acute coronary syndrome. The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events at longest follow‐up. Data were pooled using DerSimonian and Laird random‐effects models. Four randomized controlled trials (n=838) were included in our meta‐analysis. The risk of unplanned repeat revascularization at longest follow‐up was significantly lower in patients randomized to single‐stage complete revascularization (risk ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47–0.99). Results also suggest a trend towards lower risks of major adverse cardiovascular events for patients randomized to single‐stage revascularization at 6 months (risk ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.40–1.11) and at longest follow‐up (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.52–1.20). Risks of mortality and recurrent myocardial infarction at longest follow‐up were also lower with single‐stage revascularization, but 95% CIs were wide and included unity.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that single‐stage complete revascularization is safe. There also appears to be a trend towards lower long‐term risks of mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events; however, additional randomized controlled trials are required to confirm the potential benefits of single‐stage multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention.

Impact of Incomplete Percutaneous Revascularization in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Up to half of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention have multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) with conflicting data regarding optimal revascularization strategy in such patients. This paper assesses the evidence for complete revascularization (CR) versus incomplete revascularization in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and its prognostic impact using meta‐analysis.

Methods and Results

A search of PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Current Contents Connect, Google Scholar, Cochrane library, Science Direct, and Web of Science was conducted to identify the association of CR in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with major adverse cardiac events and mortality. Random‐effects meta‐analysis was used to estimate the odds of adverse outcomes. Meta‐regression analysis was conducted to assess the relationship with continuous variables and outcomes. Thirty‐eight publications that included 156 240 patients were identified. Odds of death (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.61‐0.78), repeat revascularization (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45‐0.80), myocardial infarction (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.50‐0.81), and major adverse cardiac events (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.50‐0.79) were significantly lower in the patients who underwent CR. These outcomes were unchanged on subgroup analysis regardless of the definition of CR. Similar findings were recorded when CR was studied in the chronic total occlusion (CTO) subgroup (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.53‐0.80). A meta‐regression analysis revealed a negative relationship between the OR for mortality and the percentage of CR.

Conclusion

CR is associated with reduced risk of mortality and major adverse cardiac events, irrespective of whether an anatomical or a score‐based definition of incomplete revascularization is used, and this magnitude of risk relates to degree of CR. These results have important implications for the interventional management of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

Complete Treatment Versus Residual Lesion - Long-Term Evolution After Acute Coronary Syndrome

INTRODUCTION

A recently published study raised doubts about the need for percutaneous treatment of nonculprit lesions in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS).

METHODS

Retrospective, unicentric, observational study.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the long-term outcomes in patients undergoing treatment of the culprit artery, comparing those who remained with significant residual lesions in nonculprit arteries (group I) versus those without residual lesions in other coronary artery beds (group II). The study included 580 patients (284 in group I and 296 in group II) between May 2010 and May 2013. We obtained demographic and clinical data, as well as information regarding the coronary treatment administered to the patients. In the statistical analysis, the primary outcome included combined events (reinfarction/angina, death, heart failure, and need for reintervention). The comparison between groups was performed using the chi-square test and ANOVA. The long-term analysis was conducted with the Kaplan-Meier method, with a mean follow-up of 9.86 months.

RESULTS

The mean ages were 63 years in group I and 62 years in group II. On long-term follow-up, there was no significant difference in combined events in groups I and II (31.9% versus 35.6%, respectively, p = 0.76).

CONCLUSION

The strategy of treating the culprit artery alone seems safe. In this study, no long-term differences in combined endpoints were observed between patients who remained with significant lesions compared with those without other obstructions.

Managing Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Comprehensive Review

Multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) is found in up to 60% of the patients presenting with an ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and worsens the prognosis proportional to the extent of CAD severity. However, the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association STEMI guidelines, based on mostly observational data, had recommended against a routine noninfarct-related artery percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). After these guidelines were published, a handful of randomized trials became available, and they suggested that PCI of significant lesions in a noninfarct-related artery at the time of primary PCI might result in improved patient outcomes. The incidence of major adverse cardiac events was significantly reduced by 55% at 1 year and 65% at 2 years in patients undergoing angiographically guided PCI of nonculprit vessels at the time of primary PCI, in 2 different randomized trials. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI of nonculprit vessels in this setting has also been shown to reduce cardiac events by 44% at 1 year. Meta-analyses of both nonrandomized and randomized trials have also suggested that complete revascularization at the time of STEMI significantly improves outcomes, including long-term all-cause mortality. In view of the emerging data, a focused update on primary PCI was published in 2015 and suggested that PCI of noninfarct-related arteries might be considered in selected patients. This article is a comprehensive review of the literature on the treatment of multivessel CAD in patients with STEMI, which provides the reader a critical analysis of the available information to determine the best therapeutic approach.

Culprit vessel versus immediate complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment myocardial infarction-a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Guidelines suggest percutaneous intervention (PCI) of only the culprit artery in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease. However, recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest benefit to performing PCI of other stenotic vessels at the same time as culprit vessel PCI.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with complete case meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses. Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL from 1946 to March 2014; MEDLINE and EMBASE from March 2014 to March 2015; and scanning of literature for new studies until August 2015. All RCTs comparing multivessel versus culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI were eligible. The primary outcomes of interest were recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), recurrent revascularization, and mortality. We combined data from trials to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and associated 95% CIs using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Five RCTs including 1,606 patients of whom 1,568 had complete data proved eligible. Multivessel revascularization was associated with decreased risk of repeat revascularization (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.27-0.49, risk difference 9.7% over 2 years) and recurrent nonfatal MI (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.93, risk difference 1.8% over 2 years), without increase in mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.53-1.26) or other adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled data provide moderate-certainty evidence that performance of multivessel PCI will provide an appreciable reduction in nonfatal MI and high-certainty evidence that it will reduce need for repeat revascularization. Patients are likely to place a high value on these benefits.

Complete versus culprit-only revascularization in patients with multi-vessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

The best approach for revascularization of multi-vessel coronary disease in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is controversial.

METHODS

We searched the Medline and Web of Science databases, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and major conference proceedings for clinical trials that randomized STEMI patients with multi-vessel disease to a complete versus culprit-only revascularization strategy. Random effects summary risk ratios (RR) were constructed using a DerSimonian-Laird model.

RESULTS

A total of 6 trials met our selection criteria, which yielded 1,190 patients. The mean follow-up duration was 20.5 months. The incidence of major adverse cardiac events was significantly reduced in the complete revascularization group versus the culprit-only revascularization group (RR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41-0.78, p < 0.001). This was due to a lower risk of urgent revascularization with complete revascularization (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.35-0.86, p = 0.01). A non-significant reduction was observed with complete versus culprit-only revascularization for the combined outcome of mortality or myocardial infarction (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.30-1.04, p = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

Complete revascularization of significant coronary lesions at the time of primary PCI in patients with STEMI and multi-vessel disease was associated with better outcomes. This was primarily due to a reduction in the need for urgent revascularization. Larger trials are needed to determine if complete revascularization reduces death or myocardial infarction.