What is the optimal approach to a non- culprit stenosis after ST-elevation myocardial infarction — Conservative therapy or upfront revascularization? An updated meta-analysis of randomized trials

The impact of chronic total occlusion in non-infarct related arteries on patient outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI superimposed with cardiogenic shock: A pilot systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Chronic total occlusion (CTO) is defined as a near-total blockage of a coronary artery and often occurs in arteries that are not directly responsible for the event, known as non-infarct-related arteries (NIRA). Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complication of ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) that carries significant mortality. We performed a meta-analysis to find an association between mortality in patients undergoing PCI for STEMI that have superimposed CS, with the presence of CTO in the NIRA.

MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar and clinicaltrials.gov from inception till October 2023 to retrieve studies that compare the presence of CTO with the absence of CTO in NIRA in STEMI with CS patients undergoing PCI. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality and the secondary endpoints were risk of all-cause mortality (ACM) and repeat myocardial infarction (MI). Forest plots were generated using the random effects model by pooling odds ratios (ORs) with a 95 % confidence interval. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

5 observational studies with a total of 5186 patients (1031 with CTO in NIRA and 4155 with no CTO in NIRA) were included. The presence of CTO in NIRA was associated with higher odds of 30-day mortality [OR: 3.10; 95 % CI: 1.52, 6.32; p < 0.002], and ACM [OR: 2.37; 95 % CI: 1.83, 3.08; p < 0.00001]. The odds of repeat MI were comparable between the two groups [OR: 1.61, 95 % CI: 0.03, 74.36, p = 0.81].

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of CTO in the NIRA serves as an independent indicator of unfavorable clinical outcomes including increased risk of 30-day mortality and all-cause mortality. The risk of repeat MI was comparable between the two groups. Large-scale, multicenter trials are warranted to identify the most effective management approach for these patients.

Multivessel vs. Culprit Vessel-Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicating by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains controversial. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) compared to culprit vessel-only PCI (CO-PCI) for the treatment, only in patients with STEMI with CS.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted. Studies assessed the efficacy outcomes of short (in-hospital or 30 days)/long-term mortality, cardiac death, myocardial reinfarction, repeat revascularization, and safety outcomes of stroke, bleeding, acute renal failure with MV-PCI vs. CO-PCI in patients with STEMI with CS were included. The publication bias and sensitivity analysis were also performed.

Results

A total of 15 studies were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in short- and long-term mortality in patients treated with MV-PCI compared to CO-PCI group [odds ratio (OR) = 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.92–1.48; OR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58–1.28]. Similarly, there were no significant differences in cardiac death (OR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.44–1.00), myocardial reinfarction (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.77–2.00), repeat revascularization (OR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.40–1.42), bleeding (OR = 1.53; 95% CI, 0.53–4.43), or stroke (OR = 1.42; 95% CI, 0.90–2.23) between the two groups. There was a higher risk in acute renal failure (OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04–1.69) in patients treated with MV-PCI when compared with CO-PCI.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggests that there may be no significant benefit for patients with STEMI complicating CS treated with MV-PCI compared with CO-PCI, and patients are at increased risk of developing acute renal failure after MV-PCI intervention.

The optimal percutaneous coronary intervention strategy for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: a pairwise and network meta-analysis

Objective:

To investigate the optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease.

Methods:

Trials that randomized patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease to immediate multivessel PCI, staged multivessel PCI, or culprit-only PCI and prospective observational studies that investigated all-cause death were included. Random effect risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

Results:

A total of 13 randomized trials with 7627 patients and 21 prospective observational studies with 60311 patients were included. In the pairwise and network meta-analysis based on randomized trials, immediate or staged multivessel PCI was associated with a lower risk of long-term major adverse cardiac events (MACE; RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.74) than culprit-only PCI, which was mainly due to lower risks of myocardial infarction (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.88) and revascularization (RR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.51), without any significant difference in all-cause death (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.04; I² = 0.0%). However, short-term outcomes were deficient in randomized trials. The results from real-world prospective observational studies suggested that staged multivessel PCI reduced long-term all-cause death (RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.71; I² = 15.6%), whereas immediate multivessel PCI increased short-term all-cause death (RR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.22 to 2.05; I² = 43.8%) relative to culprit-only PCI.

Conclusion:

For patients in randomized trials, multivessel PCI in an immediate or staged procedure was preferred due to improvements in long-term outcomes. As a supplement, the results in real-world patients derived from prospective observational studies suggested that staged multivessel PCI was superior to immediate multivessel PCI. Therefore, staged multivessel PCI may be the optimal PCI strategy for patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease.

Immediate Versus Staged Multivessel PCI Strategies in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent guidelines and randomized clinical trials favor the multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) strategy undertaken immediately or staged after primary PCI in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. However, the optimal strategy of MV-PCI remains unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a search of PUBMED, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane database (CENTRAL), clinicaltrial.gov, and Google Scholar for studies comparing immediate versus staged MV-PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Eighteen (4 randomized clinical trials) studies with 8,100 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Relative to staged MV-PCI, immediate MV-PCI was associated with higher short-term (within 30 days) (OR, 3.96; 95% CI, 2.07-7.59; P<0.0001) and long-term (above 6 months) mortality (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.46-3.07; P<0.0001), short-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)(OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.13-3.50; P=0.02) and cardiac death (OR, 4.78; 95% CI, 2.17-10.53; P=0.0001). There was a nonsignificant trend towards higher long-term MACE (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.98-1.54; P=0.07) and cardiac death (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 0.93-3.30; P=0.08) with immediate versus staged MV-PCI. Revascularization, myocardial infarction, and safety endpoints including stroke, major bleeding, and renal failure were similar between immediate versus staged MV-PCI. However, pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials did not show any significant differences in long-term MACE, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and revascularization.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, staged instead of immediate MV-PCI may be the optimal revascularization strategy.

Does multivessel revascularization fit all patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

We sought to assess the relative merits of different revascularization strategies in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock or chronic total occlusion (CTO).

Background

Recent randomized trials and meta-analysis have suggested that multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with better outcomes in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, however, patients complicated by cardiogenic shock or CTO were excluded.

Methods

Studies that compared multivessel PCI (immediate or staged) with culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock or CTO were included. Random odd ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were conducted.

Results

Sixteen studies with 8695 patients complicated by cardiogenic shock and eight studies with 2259 patients complicated by CTO were included. In patients complicated by cardiogenic shock, a strategy of CO-PCI was associated with lower risk for short-term renal failure (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61–0.93; I² = 0.0%), with no significant difference in MACE, all-cause mortality, re-infarction, revascularization, cardiac death, heart failure, major bleeding, or stroke compared with an immediate MV-PCI strategy. In patients complicated by CTO, a strategy of CO-PCI was associated with higher risk for long-term MACE (OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.39–3.06; I² = 54.0%), all-cause mortality (OR: 2.89; 95% CI: 2.09–4.00; I² = 0.0%), cardiac death (OR: 3.12; 95% CI: 2.05–4.75; I² = 16.8%), heart failure (OR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.22–3.24; I² = 0.0%), and stroke (OR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.04–7.53; I² = 0.0%) compared with a staged MV-PCI strategy, without any difference in re-infarction, revascularization, or major bleeding.

Conclusions

For patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock, an immediate multivessel PCI was not advocated due to a higher risk for short-term renal failure, whereas for patients complicated by CTO, a staged multivessel PCI was advocated due to reduced risks for long-term MACE, all-cause mortality, cardiac death, heart failure, and stroke.

Meta-Analysis of Optimal Revascularization Strategy for Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multi-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease

Several clinical trials have shown that complete revascularization (CR) lowers the risks of revascularization and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease compared with infarct-related artery-only revascularization (IRA-OR). However, individual trials have been underpowered for hard outcomes such as cardiovascular (CV) mortality. Therefore, we conducted an updated meta-analysis representing the largest sample size to date inclusive of contemporary studies comparing CR versus IRA-OR. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using random effects model. Data from 11 RCTs involving 7,343 patients showed that compared with IRA-OR, CR was associated with lower CV mortality (RR 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.99; p = 0.04), MI (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.93), and recurrent revascularization (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.54), but similar all-cause mortality (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.05). In conclusion, in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, compared with IRA-OR, CR was associated with lower risk for CV mortality, MI, and recurrent revascularization, suggesting that CR should be the standard of care for STEMI patients.

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.

Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials for Multivessel PCI Versus Culprit Artery Only PCI in STEMI Without Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Traditionally ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multivessel coronary artery disease is treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to culprit lesion only. The benefit of multivessel (MV) PCI among STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock is unclear.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database were searched from 1996 to 2019, for studies of patients with STEMI without cardiogenic shock, who underwent PCI. Only randomized controlled trials comparing culprit PCI to MV PCI vs culprit vessel PCI were included for pairwise meta-analysis. All-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, reinfarction, revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were compared. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed for outcome variables.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials contributed 6930 patients meeting inclusion criteria. Three thousand three hundred seventy-six underwent MV PCI, and 3554 underwent culprit PCI. Our analysis demonstrated no significant difference in all-cause mortality. MV PCI had a lower risk of cardiac mortality, reinfarction, MACE and repeat revascularization compared to culprit PCI (P values <0.05). TSA showed futility for further trials to detect all-cause mortality benefit and lack of firm evidence of benefit in cardiac mortality and re-infarction, but firm evidence of benefit in revascularization and MACE.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, MV PCI strategy was beneficial in reducing cardiac mortality, reinfarction, repeat revascularization, and MACE but there was no all-cause mortality benefit when compared to culprit only PCI strategy. Evidence for benefit in cardiac mortality and re-infarction is not robust per TSA.

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.

Complete revascularization for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

INTRODUCTION

Despite the recent findings in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with limited sample sizes and the updates in clinical guidelines, the current available data for the complete revascularization (CR) in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are still contradictory.

AIM

The aim of this meta-analysis of the existing RCTs was to assess the efficacy of the CR versus revascularization of infarct-related artery (IRA) only during primary PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease (MVD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases aiming to find RCTs for patients with STEMI and MVD which compared CR with IRA-only. Random effect risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for efficacy and safety outcomes.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs with 3291 patients were included. The median follow-up duration was 17.5 months. Major adverse cardiac events (RR=0.57; 0.43-0.76; P<0.0001), cardiac mortality (RR=0.52; 0.31-0.87; P=0.014), and repeat revascularization (RR=0.50; 0.30-0.84; P=0.009) were lower in CR compared with IRA-only strategies. However, there was no significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality, recurrent nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, major bleeding events, and contrast-induced nephropathy.

CONCLUSION

For patients with STEMI and MVD undergoing primary PCI, the current evidence suggests that the risk of major adverse cardiac events, repeat revascularization, and cardiac death is reduced by CR. However, the risk for all-cause mortality and PCI-related complications is not different from the isolated culprit lesion-only treatment. Although these findings support the cardiac mortality and safety benefit of CR in stable STEMI, further large trials are required to provide better guidance for optimum management of such patients.

Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease in the 2nd Generation Drug-Eluting Stent Era: Data from the INTERSTELLAR Registry

Background and Objectives

We aimed to compare outcomes of complete revascularization (CR) versus culprit-only revascularization for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) in the 2^nd generation drug-eluting stent (DES) era.

Methods

From 2009 to 2014, patients with STEMI and MVD, who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using a 2^nd generation DES for culprit lesions were enrolled. CR was defined as PCI for a non-infarct-related artery during the index admission. Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) was defined as cardiovascular (CV) death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, or heart failure during the follow-up year.

Results

In total, 705 MVD patients were suitable for the analysis, of whom 286 (41%) underwent culprit-only PCI and 419 (59%) underwent CR during the index admission. The incidence of MACE was 11.5% in the CR group versus 18.5% in the culprit-only group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37–0.86; p<0.01; adjusted HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40–0.99; p=0.04). The CR group revealed a significantly lower incidence of CV death (7.2% vs. 12.9%; HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31–0.86; p=0.01 and adjusted HR, 0.57; 95% CI; 0.32–0.97; p=0.03, respectively).

Conclusions

CR was associated with better outcomes including reductions in MACE and CV death at 1 year of follow-up compared with culprit-only PCI in the 2^nd generation DES era.

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.