Non-infarct-related artery revascularization during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Metaanalysis of Multivessel vs Culprit Artery Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Background: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the most frequently used treatment modality for patients presenting with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Current professional society guidelines recommend culprit artery only PCI. Recent evidence suggests the potential benefit of multivessel PCI among patients with STEMI that is not complicated by cardiogenic shock. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for clinical studies of patients with STEMI, not complicated by cardiogenic shock, who underwent primary PCI between January 1966 and January 2018. We evaluated all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, reinfarction, and repeat revascularization among patients randomized to a multivessel PCI strategy compared to a culprit artery only PCI strategy. Results: Four randomized clinical trials with a total of 1,044 patients met the inclusion criteria. Five hundred and sixty-six patients underwent multivessel PCI, and 478 patients underwent culprit artery only PCI. Multivessel PCI reduced all the studied endpoints: total death, cardiac death, reinfarction, and repeat revascularization (all P values <0.05). Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the largest metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials studying multivessel PCI vs culprit artery only PCI in STEMI patients without shock, among whom lesion severity was graded by angiography alone. We found that compared to culprit artery only PCI, the multivessel PCI strategy was beneficial in reducing all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, reinfarction, and the need for repeat revascularization.

Outcomes after culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel disease during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a comparison of registry and clinical trial outcomes

BACKGROUND

The PRAMI and CvLPRIT trials support preventive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for multivessel coronary disease found during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We assess our real-world experience of the management of multivessel disease identified during primary PCI (PPCI) in a large UK regional centre.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All STEMI patients who underwent culprit-only PPCI during the study period (August 2011 to August 2013) were retrospectively assessed for eligibility to each trial. The two resulting groups were designated as the 'observational' cohorts. Primary outcomes were then determined and compared with the culprit-only revascularisation cohorts from the respective published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

A total of 1143 consecutive cases were presented during the study period. Of these, 343 would have been suitable for inclusion to PRAMI and were included in the 'observational PRAMI' cohort; 196 patients were included in the 'observational CvLPRIT' cohort.The 'observational PRAMI' cohort experienced fewer primary outcome events (13.1 vs. 22.9%), cardiac deaths (0.6 vs. 4.3%) and nonfatal myocardial infarctions (3.5 vs. 8.7%) than the culprit-only PCI PRAMI cohort (n=231); there were significantly more diabetics (P=0.022) and anterior STEMI initial presentations in the culprit-only PCI PRAMI cohort. Primary outcomes were comparable to those of the preventive PCI PRAMI cohort.The 'observational CvLPRIT' cohort showed no significant difference in primary outcomes over 12 months (16.8 vs. 21.2%), but significantly lower all-cause mortality (2 vs. 6.9%) than the culprit-only PCI CvPLRIT cohort (n=146). The 30-day event rates were similar to the preventive PCI arm; the 12-month events were better than the nonpreventive, but not as good as the preventive RCT cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes from culprit-only primary PCI for multivessel disease in patients selected by the RCT criteria from an all-comers population representing real-life experience are better than those published in the two main RCTs. The RCTs may have selected a high-risk population for study exaggerating the benefits of preventive PCI.

Predicting risk of cardiac events among ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with conservatively managed non-infarct-related artery coronary artery disease: An analysis of the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

Recent randomized evidence has demonstrated benefit with complete revascularization during the index hospitalization for multivessel coronary artery disease ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients; however, this benefit likely depends on the risk of future major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

METHODS

Using data from Duke University Medical Center (2003-2012), we identified those at high risk for 1-year MACE among 664 STEMI patients with conservatively managed non-infarct-related artery (non-IRA) lesions. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified clinical and angiographic characteristics associated with MACE (death, myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization) to 1 year and developed an integer-based risk prediction model for clinical use.

RESULTS

In this cohort (median age 60 years, 30% female), the unadjusted Kaplan-Meier rates for MACE at 30 days and 1 year were 10% and 28%, respectively. Characteristics associated with MACE at 1 year included reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, hypertension, heart failure, higher-risk non-IRA vessels (left main), renal insufficiency, and greater % stenosis of non-IRA lesions. A 15-point risk score including these variables had modest discrimination (C-index 0.67) across a spectrum of subsequent risk (4%-88%) for 1-year MACE.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a wide spectrum of risk following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI patients with multivessel disease. Using readily available clinical characteristics, the expected incidence of MACE by 1 year can be calculated with a simplified risk score, facilitating a tailored approach to clinical care.

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.

Non-infarct related artery revascularization in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Multivessel disease (MVD) is common in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and is associated with significant risk of future cardiovascular (CV) events including short and longer-term mortality. In this review, we examine the pathophysiologic construct contributing to adverse prognosis of MVD in STEMI, relevant available evidence that currently guides the management of the noninfarct-related artery (IRA) stenosis and define the remaining knowledge gaps for future studies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Results of recent small sized randomized trials, when pooled, suggest improvement in CV outcomes including CV mortality and repeat revascularization with revascularization of the non-IRA stenosis compared with medical management alone. In addition, there does not appear to be an increase in bleeding, contrast-induced nephropathy or stroke, as suggested by earlier observational data.

SUMMARY

These recent data have led to a Class IIb recommendation in the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines stating that non-IRA revascularization may be considered in selected patients with STEMI and MVD who are hemodynamically stable, either at the time of primary PCI or as a planned staged procedure. The ongoing COMPLETE and CULPRIT-SHOCK studies will provide additional data to further inform the role of non-IRA revascularization and its timing in the management of these patients.

MH, Zarich SW, Osho AA, Gluud C, Kelbæk H, Engstrøm T, Høfsten DE, Brennan JM. Complete versus culprit-only revascularisation in ST elevation myocardial infarction with multi-vessel disease

BACKGROUND

Multi-vessel coronary disease in people with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is common and is associated with worse prognosis after STEMI. Based on limited evidence, international guidelines recommend intervention on only the culprit vessel during STEMI. This, in turn, leaves other significantly stenosed coronary arteries for medical therapy or revascularisation based on inducible ischaemia on provocative testing. Newer data suggest that intervention on both the culprit and non-culprit stenotic coronary arteries (complete intervention) may yield better results compared with culprit-only intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of early complete revascularisation compared with culprit vessel only intervention strategy in people with STEMI and multi-vessel coronary disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was 4 January 2017. We applied no language restrictions. We handsearched conference proceedings to December 2016, and contacted authors and companies related to the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs), wherein complete revascularisation strategy was compared with a culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of people with STEMI and multi-vessel coronary disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed the methodological quality of each trial using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We resolved the disagreements by discussion among review authors. We followed standard methodological approaches recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were long-term (one year or greater after the index intervention) all-cause mortality, long-term cardiovascular mortality, long-term non-fatal myocardial infarction, and adverse events. The secondary outcomes were short-term (within the first 30 days after the index intervention) all-cause mortality, short-term cardiovascular mortality, short-term non-fatal myocardial infarction, revascularisation, health-related quality of life, and cost. We analysed data using fixed-effect models, and expressed results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE criteria to assess the quality of evidence and we conducted Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to control risks of random errors.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs, that involved 2633 people with STEMI and multi-vessel coronary disease randomly assigned to either a complete (n = 1381) versus culprit-only (n = 1252) revascularisation strategy. The complete and the culprit-only revascularisation strategies did not differ for long-term all-cause mortality (65/1274 (5.1%) in complete group versus 72/1143 (6.3%) in culprit-only group; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.11; participants = 2417; studies = 8; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence). Compared with culprit-only intervention, the complete revascularisation strategy was associated with a lower proportion of long-term cardiovascular mortality (28/1143 (2.4%) in complete group versus 51/1086 (4.7%) in culprit-only group; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.79; participants = 2229; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence) and long-term non-fatal myocardial infarction (47/1095 (4.3%) in complete group versus 70/1004 (7.0%) in culprit-only group; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.89; participants = 2099; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence). The complete and the culprit-only revascularisation strategies did not differ in combined adverse events (51/2096 (2.4%) in complete group versus 57/1990 (2.9%) in culprit-only group; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.21; participants = 4086; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence). Complete revascularisation was associated with lower proportion of long-term revascularisation (145/1374 (10.6%) in complete group versus 258/1242 (20.8%) in culprit-only group; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.57; participants = 2616; studies = 9; I2 = 31%; very low quality evidence). TSA of long-term all-cause mortality, long-term cardiovascular mortality, and long-term non-fatal myocardial infarction showed that more RCTs are needed to reach more conclusive results on these outcomes. Regarding long-term repeat revascularisation more RCTs may not change our present result. The quality of the evidence was judged to be very low for all primary and the majority of the secondary outcomes mainly due to risk of bias, imprecision, and indirectness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with culprit-only intervention, the complete revascularisation strategy may be superior due to lower proportions of long-term cardiovascular mortality, long-term revascularisation, and long-term non-fatal myocardial infarction, but these findings are based on evidence of very low quality. TSA also supports the need for more RCTs in order to draw stronger conclusions regarding the effects of complete revascularisation on long-term all-cause mortality, long-term cardiovascular mortality, and long-term non-fatal myocardial infarction.

Clinical outcomes in myocardial infarction and multivessel disease after a cardiac rehabilitation programme: Partial versus complete revascularization

BACKGROUND

Current guideline recommendations encourage culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. However, recent studies have shown a better clinical outcome in patients who receive multivessel PCI.

AIM

To measure and compare clinical outcomes between partial revascularization (PR) versus complete revascularization (CR) in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease who underwent a cardiac rehabilitation programme.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 282 patients with STEMI and multivessel disease who received PR or CR and were subsequently enrolled in a cardiac rehabilitation programme between July 2006 and November 2013 at La Paz University Hospital. The incidences of cardiovascular events, new PCI, hospital admissions for cardiovascular reasons and mortality were compared between the PR and CR groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 143 patients received PR and 139 received CR. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups, except for mean age (59.3 vs. 56.7 years; P=0.02), diabetes mellitus prevalence (34.3% vs. 20.1%; P=0.01) and number of arteries with stenosis (2.6 vs. 2.3; P=0.001). During the mean follow-up of 48.0±25.9 months, a cardiovascular event occurred in 23 (16.1%) PR patients and 20 (14.4%) CR patients, with no statistically significant differences in the early (hazard ratio: 0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.19-1.89) or late (hazard ratio: 1.40, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-3.14) follow-up periods. Cox regression, adjusted for age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus and number of affected coronary vessels, showed no difference in new cardiovascular event risk.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no statistical differences in clinical outcomes between PR and CR among patients who received cardiac rehabilitation.

The Systematic Evaluation of Identifying the Infarct Related Artery Utilizing Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Patients Presenting with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Identification of the infarct-related artery (IRA) in patients with STEMI using coronary angiography (CA) is often based on the ECG and can be challenging in patients with severe multi-vessel disease. The current study aimed to determine how often percutaneous intervention (PCI) is performed in a coronary artery different from the artery supplying the territory of acute infarction on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR).

METHODS

We evaluated 113 patients from the Reduction of infarct Expansion and Ventricular remodeling with Erythropoetin After Large myocardial infarction (REVEAL) trial, who underwent CMR within 4±2 days of revascularization. Blinded reviewers interpreted CA to determine the IRA and CMR to determine the location of infarction on a 17-segment model. In patients with multiple infarcts on CMR, acuity was determined with T2-weighted imaging and/or evidence of microvascular obstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 5 (4%) patients were found to have a mismatch between the IRA identified on CMR and CA. In 4/5 cases, there were multiple infarcts noted on CMR. Thirteen patients (11.5%) had multiple infarcts in separate territories on CMR with 4 patients (3.5%) having multiple acute infarcts and 9 patients (8%) having both acute and chronic infarcts.

CONCLUSIONS

In this select population of patients, the identification of the IRA by CA was incorrect in 4% of patients presenting with STEMI. Four patients with a mismatch had an acute infarction in more than one coronary artery territory on CMR. The role of CMR in patients presenting with STEMI with multi-vessel disease on CA deserves further investigation.

Impact of the Residual SYNTAX Score on Outcomes of Revascularization in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI) has become the preferred reperfusion strategy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when performed by an experienced team in a timely manner. However, no consensus exists regarding the management of multivessel coronary disease detected at the time of P-PCI.

Prognosis of STEMI Patients with Multi-Vessel Disease Undergoing Culprit-Only PCI without Significant Residual Ischemia on Non-Invasive Stress Testing

Aims

In about 50–80% of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients there is significant atherosclerotic disease in other coronary arteries in addition to the culprit vessel. There is substantial controversy as to the optimal revascularization approach in these patients. We sought to compare the outcomes of STEMI patients with multi-vessel disease (MVD) treated with culprit-only primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) without significant ischemia on subsequent non-invasive testing, to those of STEMI patients with single-vessel disease (SVD).

Methods and Results

Between 2001–2010, 1,540 consecutive patients treated with primary PCI for STEMI were prospectively observed and entered into a comprehensive clinical database. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), consisting of mortality, re-infarction and revascularization within 1 and 3 years following PPCI (excluding events occurring during the first 30 days). Patients with cardiogenic shock were excluded. The study included 720 patients with SVD and 185 patients with MVD who underwent culprit-only PPCI and had no residual ischemia on subsequent non-invasive stress testing. Patients with MVD were older, more likely to have hypertension or previous MI and less likely to be smokers and present with anterior MI than patients with SVD. One and 3-year MACE rates were similar between the groups. On cox proportional-hazards regression MVD without residual ischemia was not independently associated with MACE and its components.

Conclusions

STEMI patients with MVD treated with culprit only-PCI without significant residual ischemia on non-invasive stress testing appear to have similar prognosis to STEMI patients with SVD.

Fractional Flow Reserve in Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Guide for Non-Culprit Lesions?

In patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multi-vessel disease (MVD), the optimal therapy for non-culprit lesions is still a matter of debate. While guidelines discourage a concomitant treatment of infarct- and non-infarct-related arteries, recent studies document advantages of a complete (preventive) revascularization during primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Such an approach, however, may result in overtreatment, because angiography does not provide robust information about the functional severity of MVD. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements can be a valuable guide for non-culprit lesions in acute myocardial infarction, but so far, only the reliability and safety of FFR measurements have been established in this setting. The clinical implications of an FFR-guided treatment strategy in STEMI patients with MVD are currently being tested in a large randomized trial.

Multivessel revascularisation versus infarct-related artery only revascularisation during the index primary PCI in STEMI patients with multivessel disease: a meta-analysis

Background

There are controversial data regarding infarct-related artery only (IRA-PCI) revascularisation versus multivessel revascularisation (MV-PCI) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We performed a meta-analysis comparing outcome in same stage MV-PCI versus IRA-PCI in STEMI patients with multivessel disease.

Methods

Systematic searches of studies comparing MV-PCI with IRA-PCI in the MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of systematic reviews were conducted. A meta-analysis was performed of all available studies. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were re-infarction, revascularisation, bleeding and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

Results

A total of 15 studies were identified with a total number of 35,975 patients. Mortality rate was significantly higher in the MV-PCI group compared with the IRA-PCI group, odds ratio (OR): 1.64 (1.46–1.85). Both the incidence of re-infarction and re-PCI were significantly lower in the MV-PCI group compared with the IRA-PCI group: OR 0.54 (0.34–0.88) and OR 0.67 (0.48–0.93), respectively. Bleeding complications occurred more often in the MV-PCI group as compared with the IRA-PCI group: OR 1.24 (1.08–1.42). Rates of MACE were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusions

MV-PCI during the index of primary PCI in STEMI patients is associated with a higher mortality rate, a higher risk of bleeding complications, but lower risk of re-intervention and re-infarction and comparable rates of MACE.

Effect of revascularization strategy in patients with acute myocardial infarction and renal insufficiency with multivessel disease

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare the risk of complications and outcome between infarct-related artery (IRA)-only revascularization and multivessel (MV) revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) with renal insufficiency and MV disease.

METHODS

A total of 1,031 acute MI patients with renal insufficiency and MV disease who were registered in the Korea Working Group on Myocardial Infarction were enrolled. They were divided into two groups (IRA-only revascularization group, n = 404; MV revascularization group, n = 627), and investigated the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and the incidence of complications after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

RESULTS

Complications after PCI occurred in 19.9% of all patients (206/1,031). Complications after PCI occurred more frequently in the MV revascularization group compared with the IRA-only revascularization group (20.1% [126/627] vs. 15.3% [62/404], respectively; p = 0.029]. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 6.3%, and there was no significant difference between the groups (5.2% in the IRA-only revascularization group vs. 7.0% in the MV revascularization group; p = 0.241). The total incidence of MACE was 11.1%, and there was no significant difference between the groups (11.6% in the IRA-only revascularization group vs. 10.7% in the MV revascularization group; p = 0.636).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of complications after PCI was significantly lower in the IRA-only revascularization group compared with the MV revascularization group. However, there were no significant difference in the 12-month outcomes between groups in patients with acute MI and renal insufficiency with MV disease.

Culprit vessel versus multivessel intervention at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: real-world analysis of 3984 patients in London

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that up to two thirds of patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction have multivessel disease. The optimal strategy for treating nonculprit disease is currently under debate. This study provides a real-world analysis comparing a strategy of culprit-vessel intervention (CVI) versus multivessel intervention at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We compared CVI versus multivessel intervention in 3984 patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention between 2004 and 2011 at all 8 tertiary cardiac centers in London. Multivariable-adjusted models were built to determine independent predictors for in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and all-cause mortality at 1 year. To reduce confounding and bias, propensity score methods were used. CVI was associated with reduced in-hospital MACE (4.6% versus 7.2%; P=0.010) and mortality at 1 year (7.4% versus 10.1%; P=0.031). CVI was an independent predictor for reduced in-hospital MACE (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.75; P<0.001) and survival at 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.47-0.91; P=0.011) in the complete cohort; and in 2821 patients in propensity-matched cohort (in-hospital MACE: odds ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.76; P=0.002; and 1-year survival: hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.90; P=0.010). Inverse probability treatment weighted analyses also confirmed CVI as an independent predictor for reduced in-hospital MACE (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15-0.96; P=0.040) and survival at 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.21-0.93; P=0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

In this observational analysis of patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, CVI was associated with increased survival at 1 year. Acknowledging the limitations with observational analyses, our findings support current recommended practice guidelines.

Multi-vessel versus culprit-vessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention in STEMI patients with multivessel disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is preferred in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In patients with acute STEMI with multivessel disease (MVD), the guidelines recommend culprit vessel PCI (CV-PCI) in the absence of hemodynamic instability. We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multi-vessel PCI (MV-PCI) with CV-PCI or staged PCI (S-PCI) in patients with acute STEMI and MVD.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched for publications since inception to December 2013. Random effects model was used to compute summary effects.

RESULTS

Four RCTs (840 patients) were identified. MV-PCI compared to CV-PCI significantly reduced the risks of major adverse cardiac events (MACE)-a composite of MI, revascularization and all-cause mortality (RR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.35-0.60, P<0.00001) by reducing the risks of MI (0.35, 0.17-0.71, P=0.004) and revascularization (0.35, 0.24-0.52, P<0.00001). The risk of all-cause mortality was not different (0.69, 0.39-1.21, P=0.19). S-PCI and MV-PCI had similar risks of MACE (0.96, 0.59-1.57, P=0.87), MI (0.60, 0.20-1.78, P=0.36), revascularization (0.86, 0.47-1.54, P=0.60) and all-cause mortality (1.50, 0.44-5.07, P=0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

MV-PCI compared to CV-PCI resulted in lower risks of MACE driven by lower MI and revascularization in patients with STEMI and multi-vessel disease.

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

Although multivessel coronary artery disease has been associated with poor health outcomes in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the optimal approach to revascularization remains uncertain. The objective of this review was to determine the benefits and harms of culprit vessel only vs immediate complete percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute STEMI. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Teams of 2 reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened titles and abstracts, completed full-text reviews, and abstracted data. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effect models for nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and adverse events, and used the GRADE approach to rate confidence in estimates of effect. Of 341 patients randomized to complete revascularization and followed to study conclusion, 31 experienced revascularization, as did 80 of 324 randomized to culprit vessel only revascularization (RR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.24-0.53). Ten patients in the complete revascularization group and 28 patients in the culprit vessel only revascularization group experienced nonfatal MI (RR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.17-0.72). All-cause mortality and cardiac deaths did not differ between groups (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.40-1.21 for all-cause mortality; RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.22-1.04 for cardiac deaths). Pooled data from 3 RCTs suggest that immediate complete revascularization probably reduces revascularization in patients with acute STEMI; although results suggest possible benefits on MI and death, confidence in estimates is low.

Reperfusion strategies in acute coronary syndromes

The appropriate timing of angiography to facilitate revascularization is essential to optimize outcomes in patents with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes. Timely reperfusion of the infarct-related coronary artery in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction both with fibrinolysis or percutaneous coronary intervention minimizes myocardial damage, reduces infarct size, and decreases morbidity and mortality. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is the preferred reperfusion method if it can be performed in a timely manner. Strategies to reduce health system-related delays in reperfusion include regionalization of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction care, performing prehospital ECGs, prehospital activation of the catheterization laboratory, bypassing geographically closer nonpercutaneous coronary intervention-capable hospitals, bypassing the percutaneous coronary intervention-capable hospital emergency department, and early and consistent availability of the catheterization laboratory team. With implementation of such strategies, there has been significant improvement in process measures, including door-to-balloon time. However, despite reductions in door-to-balloon times, there has been little change during the past several years in in-hospital mortality, suggesting additional factors including patient-related delays, optimization of tissue-level perfusion, and cardioprotection must be addressed to improve patient outcomes further. Early angiography followed by revascularization when appropriate also reduces rates of death, MI, and recurrent ischemia in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes, with the greatest benefits realized in the highest risk patients. Among patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes with multivessel disease, choice of revascularization modality should be made as in stable coronary artery disease, with a goal of complete ischemic revascularization.

Current Status of Coronary Intervention in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a standard interventional treatment modality for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Diagnostic coronary angiogram during PCI reveals multivessel coronary artery disease in about half of patients with STEMI, and it is difficult to make decision on the extent of intervention in these patients. Although revascularization for the infarct-related artery only is still effective for STEMI patients, several studies have reported the efficacy of multivessel revascularization during primary PCI, as well as in a staged PCI procedure. Clinicians should consider clinical aspects such as initial cardiogenic shock and myocardial viability when performing primary multivessel intervention, including the risks and benefits of multivessel revascularization in patients undergoing primary PCI. This review describes the current status of performing multivessel PCI in patients with STEMI and proposes an optimal revascularization strategy based on the previous literature.