Long-Term Follow-Up of Complete Versus Lesion-Only Revascularization in STEMI and Multivessel Disease

The impact of ticagrelor therapy on CABG-related bleeding in patients with STEMI managed with pPCI and following on-pump CABG

Patients on double antiplatelet treatment who need early in-hospital coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are at high risk of major bleeding. In this study, we aimed to investigate the impact of ticagrelor preloading on CABG related bleeding in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) initially managed with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). Patients with the diagnosis of STEMI who were managed with pPCI and underwent subsequent early (4-7 days following pPCI) or delayed (> 7 days following pPCI) on-pump CABG surgery were included. All study patients were preloaded with ticagrelor 180 mg prior to pPCI procedure. Patients' demographics, clinical variables, and short-term cardiovascular outcomes were recorded. This is a retrospective study which included 98 patients. Fifty-four (54%) patients underwent early and 44 (45%) patients underwent delayed CABG surgery. CABG-related bleeding occurred in 22 (22.4%) patients. There was no significant difference with respect to total ticagrelor dose and timing of the surgery between patients with or without CABG-related bleeding (p: 0.165 and p: 0.142). Multivariate analyses demonstrated that only preoperative hemoglobin level < 10.9 and use of mechanical cardiac support devices were independent predictors of CABG-related bleeding [OR: 3719, p: 0.009 and OR: 11,698, p: 0.004, respectively].There were three deaths within the 30 days of surgery, all occurring in patients with CABG-related bleeding. However, CABG-related bleeding was not associated with long-term cardiovascular events during the follow-up. Our results indicated that discontinuation of ticagrelor therapy 3 days prior to surgery is sufficient to avoid CABG-related bleeding. Moreover, early CABG following STEMI does not increase the risk of long-term cardiovascular events.

Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization Strategies After Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention improves outcomes compared with culprit revascularization following myocardial infarction (MI) with multivessel coronary artery disease. An all-cause mortality reduction has never been demonstrated. Debate also remains regarding the optimal timing of complete revascularization (immediate or staged), and method of evaluation of nonculprit lesions (physiology or angiography).

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to perform an updated systematic review with frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analyses including the totality of randomized data investigating revascularization strategies in patients presenting with MI and multivessel coronary artery disease.

METHODS

The primary comparison tested complete vs culprit revascularization. Timing and methods of achieving complete revascularization were assessed. The prespecified primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Outcomes were expressed as relative risk (RR) (95% CI).

RESULTS

Twenty-four eligible trials randomized 16,371 patients (weighted mean follow-up: 26.4 months). Compared with culprit revascularization, complete revascularization reduced all-cause mortality in patients with any MI (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.74-0.99; P = 0.04). Cardiovascular mortality, MI, major adverse cardiac events and repeat revascularization were also significantly reduced. In patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, the point estimate for all-cause mortality with complete revascularization was RR: 0.91 (95% CI: 0.78-1.05; P = 0.18). Rates of stent thrombosis, major bleeding, and acute kidney injury were similar. Immediate complete revascularization ranked higher than staged complete revascularization for all endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

Complete revascularization following MI reduces all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, major adverse cardiac events, and repeat revascularization. There may be benefits to immediate complete revascularization, but additional head-to-head trials are needed.

Timing of fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: Rationale and design of the OPTION-STEMI trial

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend complete revascularization (CR) in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD). With regard to the timing of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-infarct-related artery (non-IRA), recent randomized clinical trials have revealed that immediate CR was non-inferior to staged CR. However, the optimal timing of CR remains uncertain. The OPTION-STEMI trial compared immediate CR and in-hospital staged CR guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) for intermediate stenosis of the non-IRA.

METHODS

The OPTION-STEMI is a multicenter, investigator-initiated, prospective, open-label, non-inferiority randomized clinical trial. The study included patients with at least 1 non-IRA lesion with ≥50% stenosis by visual estimation. Patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomized into 2 groups at a 1:1 ratio: immediate CR (i.e., PCI for the non-IRA performed during primary angioplasty) or in-hospital staged CR. In the in-hospital staged CR group, PCI for non-IRA lesions was performed on another day during the index hospitalization. Non-IRA lesions with 50%-69% stenosis by visual estimation were evaluated by FFR, whereas those with ≥70% stenosis was revascularized without FFR. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and all unplanned revascularization at 1 year after randomization. Enrolment began in December 2019 and was completed in January 2024. The follow-up for the primary endpoint will be completed in January 2025, and primary results will be available in the middle of 2025.

CONCLUSIONS

The OPTION-STEMI is a multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized trial that evaluated the timing of in-hospital CR with the aid of FFR in patients with STEMI and MVD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov. Unique identifier: NCT04626882; and URL: https://cris.nih.go.kr. Unique identifier: KCT0004457.

Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularization in Patients Presenting with Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Coronary Disease Without Cardiac Shock: A Study-Level Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Achieving full revascularization via percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may enhance the prognosis of individuals diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel coronary disease (MVD). The present work focused on investigating whether PCI should be performed during staged or index procedures for non-culprit lesions.

METHODS

Electronic databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, were systematically explored to locate studies contrasting immediate revascularization with staged complete revascularization for patients who experienced ACS and MVD without cardiac shock. The outcome measures comprised major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (UIDR).

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials involving 3550 patients, including 1780 who received immediate complete revascularization (ICR) and 1770 who received staged complete revascularization (SCR), were included in the analysis. The ICR group had lower MACEs (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.61~0.87, P = 0.0004), MI (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.37~0.77, P = 0.0008), and UIDR (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.50~0.81, P = 0.0003) than did the SCR group. All-cause mortality, CVD incidence, and stroke incidence did not significantly differ between the two groups. According to our subgroup analyses based on the time window of the SCR, the ICR group had significantly fewer MACEs (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.56~0.88, P = 0.003), MI (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.37~0.77, P = 0.0002), and UIDR (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.40~0.77, P = 0.0004) than did the subgroup of patients who were between discharge and 45 days.

CONCLUSION

Compared with patients in the SCR group, patients in the ICR group had decreased MACEs, MI, and UIDR, especially between discharge and 45 days. All-cause mortality and CVD incidence were not significantly different between the two groups.

Infarct-related artery only revascularization versus multi-vessel revascularization for patients with Killip I-IV acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease

BACKGROUND

The optimal revascularization strategy for non-culprit vessels is still up for debate nowadays, particularly when it comes to individuals with different Killip classes. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate whether multivessel revascularization, as compared with infarct-related artery (IRA) alone revascularization, improves long-term prognosis in patients who have experienced an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and have multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data from 646 patients who presented with AMI and multivessel CAD at Beijing Chaoyang hospital between November 2014 and November 2020. Based on various revascularization strategies, patients were categorised into two groups: IRA-only revascularization (n = 416) and multivessel revascularization (n = 230). The primary endpoint was cardiovascular death.

RESULTS

In the following 60.6 months (60.6 ± 23.9), the primary endpoint occurred in 3% of the multivessel revascularization group versus 9.6% in the IRA-only revascularization group (HR 0.284, CI 0.120-0.669, p = 0.002). For the Killip I-II patients (n = 533), the primary endpoint occurred in 2.6% of the multivessel revascularization group versus 9.5% in the IRA-only revascularization group (HR 0.236, CI 0.083-0.667, p = 0.003). For Killip III-IV patients (n = 113), there was no significance differences in the primary endpoint. After using the inverse probability weighted method, the benefit of complete revascularization was consistently observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Multivessel revascularization significantly reduced the incidence of cardiovascular death for patients presenting with AMI and multivessel CAD, particularly for Killip I-II patients. There were no significant differences in the primary outcome across the groups of patients with Killip III-IV.

Outcomes of patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock treated with culprit vessel-only versus multivessel primary PCI

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Multivessel primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is still often used in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS). The study aimed to compare the characteristics and prognosis of patients with CS-STEMI and multivessel coronary disease (MVD) treated with culprit vessel-only pPCI or multivessel-pPCI during the initial procedure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From 2016 to 2020, 23,703 primary PCI patients with STEMI were included in a national all-comers registry of cardiovascular interventions. Of them, 1,213 (5.1%) patients had CS and MVD at admission to the hospital. Initially, 921 (75.9%) patients were treated with culprit vessel (CV)-pPCI and 292 (24.1%) with multivessel (MV)-pPCI.

RESULTS

Patients with 3-vessel disease and left main disease had a higher probability of being treated with MV-pPCI than patients with 2-vessel disease and patients without left main disease (28.5% vs. 18.6%; p < 0.001 and 37.7% vs. 20.6%; p < 0.001). Intra-aortic balloon pump, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and other mechanical circulatory support systems were more often used in patients with MV-pPCI. Thirty (30)-day and 1-year all-cause mortality rates were similar in the CV-pPCI and MV-pPCI groups (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77 to 1.32; p = 0.937 and 1.1; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.44; p = 0.477). The presence of 3-vessel disease and the use of ECMO were the strongest adjusted predictors of 30-day and 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data from an extensive all-comers registry suggests that selective use of MV-pPCI does not increase the all-cause mortality rate in patients with CS-STEMI and MVD compared to CV-pPCI.

Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Treatment for Acute Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A Prespecified Analysis of the FRAME-AMI Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Complete revascularization by non-infarct-related artery (IRA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction is standard practice to improve patient prognosis. However, it is unclear whether a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided or angiography-guided treatment strategy for non-IRA PCI would be more cost-effective.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI in patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this prespecified cost-effectiveness analysis of the FRAME-AMI randomized clinical trial, patients were randomly allocated to either FFR-guided or angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions between August 19, 2016, and December 24, 2020. Patients were aged 19 years or older, had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI and underwent successful primary or urgent PCI, and had at least 1 non-IRA lesion (diameter stenosis >50% in a major epicardial coronary artery or major side branch with a vessel diameter of ≥2.0 mm). Data analysis was performed on August 27, 2023.

Intervention

Fractional flow reserve-guided vs angiography-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The model simulated death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. Future medical costs and benefits were discounted by 4.5% per year. The main outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), direct medical costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of FFR-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI. State-transition Markov models were applied to the Korean, US, and European health care systems using medical cost (presented in US dollars), utilities data, and transition probabilities from meta-analysis of previous trials.

Results

The FRAME-AMI trial randomized 562 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 63.3 (11.4) years. Most patients were men (474 [84.3%]). Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI increased QALYs by 0.06 compared with angiography-guided PCI. The total cumulative cost per patient was estimated as $1208 less for FFR-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI. The ICER was -$19 484 and the INB was $3378, indicating that FFR-guided PCI was more cost-effective for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed consistent results and the likelihood iteration of cost-effectiveness in FFR-guided PCI was 97%. When transition probabilities from the pairwise meta-analysis of the FLOWER-MI and FRAME-AMI trials were used, FFR-guided PCI was more cost-effective than angiography-guided PCI in the Korean, US, and European health care systems, with an INB of $3910, $8557, and $2210, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the likelihood iteration of cost-effectiveness with FFR-guided PCI was 85%, 82%, and 31% for the Korean, US, and European health care systems, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that FFR-guided PCI for non-IRA lesions saved medical costs and increased quality of life better than angiography-guided PCI for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI should be considered in determining the treatment strategy for non-IRA stenoses in these patients.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02715518.

Immediate versus staged complete revascularization in acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines recommend a complete revascularization (CR) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). However, its optimal timing is unclear. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes following immediate versus staged CR in ACS.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were searched until March 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate versus staged CR. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) at the longest follow-up. Secondary outcomes were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), any unplanned revascularization, target-vessel revascularization (TVR), and stent thrombosis. Safety outcomes were major bleeding, contrast volume, procedure duration, and length of hospitalization.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included (3559 patients, weighted mean follow-up 12.5 months). There were no differences in the primary endpoint (OR 0.74, 95%CI: 0.54-1.01) and in the secondary endpoints of death, and stent thrombosis between the two CR strategies. Immediate CR was associated with a lower risk of recurrent MI (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.76), any unplanned revascularization (OR 0.59, 95%CI: 0.43-0.80), and TVR (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45-0.84) compared to staged CR. Immediate CR was also associated with lower total contrast volume and shorter total procedure duration and hospitalization length compared to staged CR without differences in major bleedings.

CONCLUSION

No difference was found between immediate and staged CR regarding MACE, or deaths rates at one year. Immediate CR may be associated with a lower risk of recurrent MI and unplanned coronary revascularization than staged CR.

Complete Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization in Acute Coronary Syndromes With Multivessel Coronary Disease: A Systematic Review

Multivessel disease (MVD) affects approximately 50% of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and is significantly burdened by poor outcomes and high mortality. It represents a clinical challenge in patient management and decision making and subtends an evolving research area related to the pathophysiology of unstable plaques and local or systemic inflammation. The benefits of complete revascularization are established in hemodynamically stable ACS patients with MVD, and guidelines provide some reference points to inform clinical practice, based on an evidence level that is solid for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and less robust for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. However, several areas of uncertainty remain, such as the optimal timing for complete revascularization or the best guiding strategy for intermediate stenoses. We performed a systematic review of current evidence in the field of percutaneous revascularization in ACS and MVD, also including future perspectives from ongoing trials that will directly compare different timing strategies and investigate the role of invasive and noninvasive guidance techniques. (Complete percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease; CRD42022383123).

Impact of Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs. Culprit Vessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

Recent clinical trials have shown that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-culprit lesions (NCLs) reduces the risk of adverse events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but the effect on long-term outcomes remains unclear in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients and a real-world clinical setting.

METHODS

A retrospective observational cohort study of ACS patients who underwent primary PCI between April 2004 and December 2017 at Juntendo University Shizuoka Hospital, Japan, was performed. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular disease death (CVD death) and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) during the mean follow-up period of 2.7 years, and a landmark analysis for the incidence of the primary endpoint from 31 days to 5 years between the multivessel PCI group and the culprit only PCI group was performed. Multivessel PCI was defined as PCI including non-infarct-related coronary arteries within 30 days after the onset of ACS.

RESULTS

Of the 1109 ACS patients with multivessel coronary artery disease of the current cohort, multivessel PCI was performed in 364 (33.2 %) patients. The incidence of the primary endpoint from 31 days to 5 years was significantly lower in the multivessel PCI group (4.0 % vs. 9.6 %, log-rank p = 0.0008). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that multivessel PCI was significantly associated with fewer cardiovascular events (HR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.19-0.67, p = 0.0008).

CONCLUSION

In ACS patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, multivessel PCI may reduce the risk of CVD death and non-fatal MI compared to culprit-lesion-only PCI.

Immediate versus staged complete revascularisation in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease (BIOVASC): a prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease, complete revascularisation by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with improved clinical outcomes. We aimed to investigate whether PCI for non-culprit lesions should be attempted during the index procedure or staged.

METHODS

This prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial was done at 29 hospitals across Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain. We included patients aged 18-85 years presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and multivessel (ie, two or more coronary arteries with a diameter of 2·5 mm or more and ≥70% stenosis based on visual estimation or positive coronary physiology testing) coronary artery disease with a clearly identifiable culprit lesion. A web-based randomisation module was used to randomly assign patients (1:1), with a random block size of four to eight, stratified by study centre, to undergo immediate complete revascularisation (PCI of the culprit lesion first, followed by other non-culprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant by the operator during the index procedure) or staged complete revascularisation (PCI of only the culprit lesion during the index procedure and PCI of all non-culprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant by the operator within 6 weeks after the index procedure). The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, any unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation, or cerebrovascular events at 1 year after the index procedure. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation at 1 year after the index procedure. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients by intention to treat. Non-inferiority of immediate to staged complete revascularisation was considered to be met if the upper boundary of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not exceed 1·39. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03621501.

FINDINGS

Between June 26, 2018, and Oct 21, 2021, 764 patients (median age 65·7 years [IQR 57·2-72·9] and 598 [78·3%] males) were randomly assigned to the immediate complete revascularisation group and 761 patients (median age 65·3 years [58·6-72·9] and 589 [77·4%] males) were randomly assigned to the staged complete revascularisation group, and were included in the intention-to-treat population. The primary outcome at 1 year occurred in 57 (7·6%) of 764 patients in the immediate complete revascularisation group and in 71 (9·4%) of 761 patients in the staged complete revascularisation group (HR 0·78, 95% CI 0·55-1·11, pnon-inferiority=0·0011). There was no difference in all-cause death between the immediate and staged complete revascularisation groups (14 [1·9%] vs nine [1·2%]; HR 1·56, 95% CI 0·68-3·61, p=0·30). Myocardial infarction occurred in 14 (1·9%) patients in the immediate complete revascularisation group and in 34 (4·5%) patients in the staged complete revascularisation group (HR 0·41, 95% CI 0·22-0·76, p=0·0045). More unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisations were performed in the staged complete revascularisation group than in the immediate complete revascularisation group (50 [6·7%] patients vs 31 [4·2%] patients; HR 0·61, 95% CI 0·39-0·95, p=0·030).

INTERPRETATION

In patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease, immediate complete revascularisation was non-inferior to staged complete revascularisation for the primary composite outcome and was associated with a reduction in myocardial infarction and unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation.

FUNDING

Erasmus University Medical Center and Biotronik.

Long-term recurrent events in ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. The impact of different revascularization strategies

INTRODUCTION

The benefit of complete revascularization (CR) on long-term total event reduction in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD), still remains unclear. We assessed the efficacy of three different revascularization strategies on long-term total recurrent events.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 414 consecutive patients admitted with STEMI and MVD who were categorized according to the revascularization strategy used: culprit-vessel-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n=163); in-hospital CR (n=136); and delayed CR (n=115). The combined endpoint assessed was all-cause mortality, the total number of myocardial infarctions, ischemia-driven revascularizations or strokes. Negative binomial regression was used to assess the association between the revascularization strategy and total events; risk estimates were expressed as an incidence rates ratio (IRR).

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of four years (1.2-6), rates of the combined endpoint per 10 patient-years were 18, 0.8, and 0.6 in culprit-vessel-only PCI, in-hospital CR, and delayed CR strategies, respectively (p<0.001). After multivariable adjustment and when compared with culprit-vessel-only PCI, both in-hospital and delayed CR strategies were significantly associated with a reduction in the combined endpoint (IRR=0.40: 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.64; p<0.001; and IRR 0.40: 95% CI, 0.24-0.62; p<0.001, respectively). No differences were observed across in-hospital and delayed CR strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Complete revascularization of non-culprit lesions in patients with STEMI and MVD reduces the risk of total recurrent events during long-term follow-up. No differences between in-hospital and delayed CR strategies were found.

The optimal timing for non-culprit percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: A pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background and aims

Recently, several randomized trials have shown that patients with multivessel disease (MVD) often pursue complete revascularization during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to improve their prognosis. However, the optimal time for the non-culprit artery has been controversial. This study aimed to determine the optimal strategy for revascularization in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing three revascularization strategies [i.e., complete revascularization at the index procedure (CR), complete revascularization as a staged procedure (SR), or culprit-only revascularization (COR)] in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were included. We performed both pairwise and network meta-analyses. Network meta-analysis was performed using mixed treatment comparison models.

Results

17 trials with 8568 patients were included. In the network meta-analysis, the most interesting finding was that staged revascularization increased the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) compared with complete revascularization at the index procedure [odds ratio (OR): 1.93; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07–3.49]. In the pairwise meta-analysis, complete revascularization reduced the incidence of MACE [risk ratio (RR): 0.62, 95% CI: 0.48–0.79, p &lt; 0.001], mainly because it reduced the probability of unplanned repeat revascularization (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.33–0.75, p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, or nonfatal re-myocardial infarction (MI).

Conclusion

Our analysis suggests that complete revascularization should be performed in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, and complete revascularization at the index procedure is superior to staged revascularization in reducing the risk of MACE events.

Current recommendations for revascularization of non-infarct-related artery in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Immediate reperfusion therapy of the infarct-related artery (IRA) is the mainstay of treatment, either via primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) or thrombolytic therapy when PPCI is not feasible. Several studies have reported the incidence of multivessel disease (MVD) to be about 50% of total STEMI cases. This means that after successful PPCI of the IRA, residual lesion(s) of the non-IRA may persist. Unlike the atherosclerotic plaque of stable coronary artery disease, the residual obstructive lesion of the non-IRA contains a significantly higher prevalence of vulnerable plaques. Since these lesions are a strong predictor of acute coronary syndrome, if left untreated they are a possible cause of future adverse cardiovascular events. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the obstructive lesion of the non-IRA to achieve complete revascularization (CR) is therefore preferable. Several major randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses demonstrated the clinical benefits of the CR strategy in the setting of STEMI with MVD, not only for enhancing survival but also for reducing unplanned revascularization. The CR strategy is now supported by recently published clinical practice guidelines. Nevertheless, the benefit of revascularization must be weighed against the risks from additional procedures.

Microvascular dysfunction of the non-culprit circulation predicts poor prognosis in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

•

Microvascular and endothelial dysfunction is present in the non-culprit territory in up to 93% of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease.

•

Whether an impaired coronary physiology in the non-culprit territory correlates with long-term prognosis is yet to be determined.

•

At a median follow-up of 4 years, we found that cardiovascular events and death occurred more frequently in patients with a low coronary flow reserve (CFR) in the non-culprit artery.

•

Other parameters such as the index of microvascular resistance (IMR) or endothelial dysfunction were not independent predictors of adverse outcomes.

Background

Endothelial and microvascular dysfunction are frequently found in the non-culprit territory in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We aimed to determine whether an impaired coronary physiology of the non-culprit territory impacts long-term prognosis.

Methods

FISIOIAM was an observational single-center study which included patients with AMI and another coronary artery lesion in a different territory. Intracoronary physiology of the non-culprit artery was analyzed early after primary percutaneous coronary intervention of the culprit artery, using fractional flow reserve (FFR), index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR), coronary flow reserve (CFR), endothelium-dependent CFR (eCFR) and macrovascular endothelial function . Patients were followed for a composite outcome of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, and hospitalization due to heart failure or unstable angina.

Results

A total of 84 patients (mean age: 62 ± 10 years) were included and functional abnormalities were detected in 93% of them. During follow-up (median of 1422 days; interquartile range, 1287–1634), 13.1% of the patients experienced at least one adverse cardiovascular event. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that patients with a CFR < 2 had a higher risk of events (Hazard Ratio, HR: 4.97, 95% Confidence Interval, CI, 1.32–18.75), whereas other parameters such as FFR, IMR, eCFR, and macrovascular endothelial function had no effect. A low CFR was an independent predictor of cardiovascular events, even after adjustment for age and traditional cardiovascular risk factors (adjusted HR: 6.62, 95% CI, 1.30–33.70).

Conclusions

The presence of abnormal coronary microvascular function as measured by a CFR < 2 in the non-culprit territory predicts future risk of adverse cardiovascular events.

Fasting Blood Glucose but not TMAO is Associated with In-Stent Restenosis in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background: The purpose of our study was to assess whether the occurrence of ISR might be associated with plasmaTMAO levels in patients with ACS after DES implantation.Methods: This was a single center retrospective case-control study, in which 64 symptomatic patients with repeatedcoronary angiography after PCI and 15 patients with ISR were included in the ISR group, and 49 patients without ISRwere included in the non-ISR group. High-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry wasused to measure plasma TMAO levels.Results: No significant differences were observed in plasma TMAO between the ISR and non-ISR groups. Plasma TMAO levels showed no significant correlation with ISR, but were significantly positively correlated with diabetes mellitus, serum HbA1c levels and serum creatinine levels; moreover, they were significantly negatively correlated with female sex. ISR was significantly positively correlated with diabetes mellitus, fasting blood glucose levels, the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and syntax score; in addition, it was significantly negatively correlated with platelets. Logistic regression analysis indicated that fasting blood glucose was the only independent predictor of ISR.Conclusion: Plasma TMAO may not be associated with ISR and plaque burden in patients with ACS after DES implantation,whereas FBG may predict the development of ISR in these patients.

Comparative Effectiveness of Complete Revascularization Strategies in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) should be available for revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) is controversial. We aimed to compare the efficacy of various complete revascularization (CR) regimens for STEMI patients with MVD. The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases and clinicaltrial.gov were searched for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the FFR-guided CR, angiography-guided CR, and culprit-only revascularization (COR) strategies in STEMI patients with MVD. A Bayesian random-effect model was employed to synthesize the evidence in network meta-analysis. We used relative risk (RR) and 95% credible interval (CrI) as measures of effect size. The primary endpoint was the composite outcome of all-cause mortality or myocardial infarction (MI). Twelve RCTs were included. Angiography-guided CR showed a lower event rate of the composite outcome (RR, 0.68; 95%CrI, 0.50–0.87), all-cause mortality (RR, 0.75; 95%CrI, 0.55–0.96), MI (RR, 0.63; 95%CrI, 0.43–0.86), and repeat revascularization (RR, 0.36; 95% CrI, 0.24–0.55) compared with COR. Additionally, angiography-guided CR had a lower risk of primary outcome (RR, 0.64; 95%CrI, 0.38–0.94) and MI (RR, 0.58; 95%CrI, 0.31–0.92) than FFR-guided CR. The difference between the FFR-guided CR and COR in terms of composite outcome, all-cause mortality, and MI was similar. Angiography-guided CR was associated with the highest probability of optimal treatment for the primary outcome (98.5%), followed by FFR-guided CR (1.2%) and COR (0.3%). STEMI patients with MVD benefitted more from angiography-guided CR than from FFR-guided CR. However, only one study compared the effectiveness of FFR-guided and angiography-guided PCI; thus, the comparison between FFR-guided and angiography-guided PCI relied on indirect evidence. Therefore, further studies directly comparing the effectiveness of these two CR strategies are warranted.

Treatment of non-culprit lesions in STEMI: An incomplete journey

Approximately 50% of patients presenting with an acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). A number of randomized studies (Table 1) have all shown that complete revascularization (CR), either at the time of primary percutaneous coronary revascularization (PPCI) or within 45 days of the index admission, is safe and reduces the risk of repeat coronary revascularization and myocardial infarction (MI), particularly in the non-infarct related artery (NIRA). Despite consistently showing clinical benefit for CR, the results from the trials show variations in what drives this effect. Specifically, no study to date has provided a mechanistic insight as to how complete revascularization of chronic bystander disease may lead to the observed clinical benefit. Indeed, the randomized studies, through the variable nature of their results (reduction in MI versus revascularization etc.), have suggested the possibility that there are differing mechanisms for the observed benefit. In this review, we summarize the evidence base, highlight the limitations, and make the case that we need to understand the mechanism(s) underpinning the advantage of revascularization of NIRA in order to establish which patients are most likely to benefit. Without this insight, the current "one size fits all" approach may lead us in the wrong direction.

Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization: JACC Historical Breakthroughs in Perspective

Over the last 4 decades, percutaneous coronary intervention has evolved dramatically and is now an acceptable treatment option for patients with advanced coronary artery disease. However, trialists have struggled to establish the respective roles for percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery, especially in patients with multivessel disease and unprotected left-main stem coronary artery disease. Several pivotal trials and meta-analyses comparing these 2 revascularization strategies have enabled the relative merits of each technique to be established with regard to the type of ischemic syndrome, the coronary anatomy, and the patient's overall comorbidity. Precision medicine with individualized prognosis is emerging as an important method of selecting treatment. However, the never-ending advancement of technology, in conjunction with the emergence of novel pharmacological agents, will in the future continue to force us to reconsider the evolving question: "Which treatment strategy is better and for which patient?"

Angiography-Based 4-Dimensional Superficial Wall Strain and Stress: A New Diagnostic Tool in the Catheterization Laboratory

A novel method for four-dimensional superficial wall strain and stress (4D-SWS) is derived from the arterial motion as pictured by invasive coronary angiography. Compared with the conventional finite element analysis of cardiovascular biomechanics using the estimated pulsatile pressure, the 4D-SWS approach can calculate the dynamic mechanical state of the superficial wall in vivo, which could be directly linked with plaque rupture or stent fracture. The validation of this approach using in silico models showed that the distribution and maximum values of superficial wall stress were similar to those calculated by conventional finite element analysis. The in vivo deformation was validated on 16 coronary arteries, from the comparison of centerlines predicted by the 4D-SWS approach against the actual centerlines reconstructed from angiograms at a randomly selected time-point, which demonstrated a good agreement of the centerline morphology between both approaches (scaling: 0.995 ± 0.018 and dissimilarity: 0.007 ± 0.014). The in silico vessel models with softer plaque and larger plaque burden presented more variation in mean lumen diameter and resulted in higher superficial wall stress. In more than half of the patients (n = 16), the maximum superficial wall stress was found at the proximal lesion shoulder. Additionally, in three patients who later suffered from acute coronary syndrome, the culprit plaque rupture sites co-localized with the site of highest superficial wall stress on their baseline angiography. These representative cases suggest that angiography-based superficial wall dynamics have the potential to identify coronary segments at high-risk of plaque rupture and fracture sites of implanted stents. Ongoing studies are focusing on identifying weak spots in coronary bypass grafts, and on exploring the biomechanical mechanisms of coronary arterial remodeling and aneurysm formation. Future developments involve integration of fast computational techniques to allow online availability of superficial wall strain and stress in the catheterization laboratory.

Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention with thin-strut biodegradable versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A subgroup analysis of the BIOSTEMI randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Randomized evidence comparing newer-generation drug-eluting stents for multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is limited. We sought to investigate clinical outcomes in STEMI patients undergoing multivessel PCI with thin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES).

METHODS

We performed a subgroup analysis of the BIOSTEMI (NCT02579031) randomized trial, which included individual patient data from STEMI patients enrolled into the BIOSCIENCE (NCT02579031) study. STEMI patients randomly allocated to BP-SES or DP-EES were divided into those undergoing multivessel versus culprit lesion-only PCI. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial re-infarction or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR), within 24 months.

RESULTS

Among 1707 STEMI patients, 145 patients underwent multivessel PCI. At 2 years, TLF occurred in 2 patients (2.8%) treated with BP-SES and 13 patients (18.7%) treated with DP-EES (hazard ratio [HR], 0.14; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.03-0.61; p = 0.009) in the multivessel PCI group, and in 40 (5.3%) and 61 (8.2%) patients treated with BP-SES and DP-EES respectively (HR, 0.64; 95%CI, 0.43-0.96; p = 0.03; p for interaction = 0.050) in the culprit lesion-only PCI group. In the multivessel PCI group, the rates of clinically indicated TLR (0% vs. 12.4%) and target vessel myocardial re-infarction (0% vs. 4.6%) at 2 years were lower in patients treated with BP-SES compared with DP-EES.

CONCLUSION

In a subgroup analysis of the BIOSTEMI trial, BP-SES were associated with lower 2-year TLF rates compared to DP-EES in STEMI patients undergoing multivessel PCI.

Management of Culprit and Non-Culprit Lesions in Acute Coronary Syndrome

Multivessel coronary artery disease, defined by the presence of a significant stenosis (≥50% diameter) in two or more epicardial coronary vessels, usually occurs in more than 50% of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The latest guidelines indicate revascularization of the non-culprit artery with a recommendation of class IIB. However, the management of non-culprit lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome is still a matter of debate. This article presents the most recent concepts related to the management of culprit and non-culprit coronary lesions, based on advanced imaging approaches, in order to identify high-risk patients and prevent further acute coronary syndromes.

Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in High-Risk Settings

Despite the widespread adoption of primary percutaneous intervention and modern antithrombotic therapy, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains the leading cause of death in the United States and remains one of the most important causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Certain high-risk patients present a challenge for diagnosis and treatment. The widespread adoption of primary percutaneous intervention in addition to modern antithrombotic therapy has resulted in substantial improvement in the short- and long-term prognosis following STEMI. In this review, we aim to provide a brief analysis of the state-of-the-art treatment for patients presenting with STEMI, focusing on cardiogenic shock, current treatment and controversies, cardiac arrest, and diagnosis and treatment of mechanical complications, as well as multivessel and left main-related STEMI.

Mid-term outcomes of coronary endarterectomy combined with coronary artery bypass grafting

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the mid-term outcome of coronary endarterectomy (CE) combined with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and explore the potential risk factors for adverse events.

METHODS

A total of 208 consecutive patients underwent CE between 2008 and 2018 in our centre, of which 198 were included in this retrospective cohort study. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs). Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to evaluate event-free survival, whereas subgroup analysis and Cox regression were used to explore risk factors for the outcomes.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 34.7 months. CE + CABG was performed mainly on the left anterior descending artery (42.3%) or right coronary artery (42.3%). Both operative mortality and incidence of perioperative myocardial infarction were 1.5%. The overall survival at 3 and 5 years was 98.0% and 95.9%, whereas the MACCE-free survival was 93.7% and 89.4%, respectively. No significant difference in the incidence of MACCE was observed between on-pump and off-pump CE (P = 0.256) or between left anterior descending artery and non-left anterior descending artery endarterectomy (P = 0.540). Advanced age (>65 years) was associated with a higher risk of MACCE both in univariate [hazard ratio (HR) 3.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37-9.62; P = 0.010] and multivariate analysis (HR 3.59, 95% CI 1.32-9.77; P = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

When performed by experienced surgeons, CE + CABG could be an acceptable approach to achieve complete revascularization of diffusely diseased coronary arteries with satisfactory outcomes, although advanced age might increase the risk of MACCE.

Association of PHACTR1 intronic variants with the first myocardial infarction and their effect on PHACTR1 mRNA expression in PBMCs

BACKGROUND

Myocardial infarction (MI) and underlining atherosclerosis are the main causes of death worldwide. Phosphatase and actin regulator 1 (PHACTR1) variants have been associated with early onset MI, coronary artery disease and carotid dissection. PHACTR1 mRNA expression has been detected in tissues and cells related to atherosclerosis. Nonetheless, the true effect of PHACTR1 on vascular diseases is still unknown. Our aim was to examine the association of PHACTR1 intronic variants, rs9349379, rs2026458 and rs2876300, with MI and multi-vessel disease (MVD) and to assess their effect on PHACTR1 and EDN1 mRNA expression in PBMCs of patients six months after MI.

METHODS

The study enrolled 537 patients with the first MI and 310 controls. Gene expression was assessed in 74 patients six months after MI and 37 healthy controls. Rs9349379, rs2026458, rs2876300 and relative mRNA expressions were detected by TaqMan® technology.

RESULTS

The significant association between PHACTR1 variants and MI was not found, either individually or in haplotype. A higher frequency of rs2876300G-allele in MVD was rendered not significant after Bonferroni correction. PHACTR1 mRNA was significantly increased in PBMCs of patients six months after MI compared to controls (p = 0.02). Patients that carry ACG haplotype have increased PHACTR1 mRNA expression in PBMCs (p = 0.04). There was no effect of PHACTR1 variants on EDN1 mRNA expression.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that PHACTR1 intronic variants may have a role in severity and progression of coronary atherosclerosis. Future research is needed to clarify the mechanism underlying the role of PHACTR1 in coronary atherosclerosis and MI.

The German-Austrian S3 Guideline "Cardiogenic Shock Due to Myocardial Infarction: Diagnosis, Monitoring, and Treatment"

Despite advances in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction with subsequent mortality reduction, which are mainly caused by the early timing of revascularization, cardiogenic shock still remains the leading cause of death with mortality rates still approaching 40 to 50%. Cardiogenic shock is characterized by a multiorgan dysfunction syndrome, often complicated by a systemic inflammatory response syndrome that affects the outcome more than the reduction of the cardiac contractile function. However, both European and American guidelines on myocardial infarction focus on interventional or surgical aspects only. Therefore, experts from eight German and Austrian specialty societies including the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery published the German-Austrian S3 guideline "cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction: diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment" to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of infarction-related cardiogenic shock in 2010 covering the topics of early revascularization, revascularization techniques, intensive care unit treatment including ventilation, transfusion regimens, adjunctive medical therapy, and mechanical support devices. Within the last 3 years, this guideline was updated as some major recommendations were outdated, or new evidence had been found. This review will therefore outline the management of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction according to the updated guideline with a major focus on evidence-based recommendations which have been found relevant for cardiac surgery.

Complete Revascularization in Acute and Chronic Coronary Syndrome

In patients with multivessel disease, complete revascularization (CR) is the most biologically plausible approach irrespective of definition or type or clinical setting (acute or chronic coronary syndrome [ACS or CCS]). It aims at minimizing residual ischemia, relieving symptoms and reducing the risk of future cardiovascular events. Large evidence supports CR benefits in ACS, predominantly ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, except cardiogenic shock, although optimal assessment and timing remain debated. In patients with CCS, when revascularization is indicated, a functional CR should be attempted. Therefore, heart-team is crucial in selecting the ideal strategy for each patient to optimize decision-making.

Complete or Incomplete Revascularization for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: The PRAMI Trial to COMPLETE

Many patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Following successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of culprit lesion, whether to routinely revascularize nonculprit lesions or treat them medically has been debated. Recently, the large-scale, multinational COMPLETE trial definitively established benefit of routine, staged, angiographically guided nonculprit lesion PCI in reducing hard clinical outcomes, including the composite of death from cardiovascular causes or new myocardial infarction, with no major safety concerns. A strategy of complete revascularization with routine nonculprit lesion PCI in suitable lesions should be standard of care in STEMI with multivessel CAD.

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.

Multivessel PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction: Where Do We Stand After The COMPLETE Trial?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Multivessel coronary artery disease is frequently encountered in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Several moderate-sized randomized trials have suggested that complete revascularization of non-culprit stenoses in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients without cardiogenic shock is associated with improved outcomes driven solely by a reduction in the risk of future revascularization.

RECENT FINDINGS

The Complete versus Culprit-only Revascularization to Treat Multi-vessel disease after Early PCI for STEMI (COMPLETE) trial recently showed that a complete revascularization strategy for non-culprit stenoses for STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock, performed either during the index hospitalization or after discharge, reduces the risk of cardiac mortality or myocardial infarction (MI) driven by a reduction in the risk of MI at a median of 3 years. In STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock undergoing primary PCI, a complete revascularization strategy for non-culprit stenoses, performed either during the index hospitalization or shortly after discharge, improves outcomes and should be considered as the default strategy whenever feasible.

Complete Revascularization by Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

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.