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

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 < 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.

Inverted U-shaped relationship between body mass index and multivessel lesions in Chinese patients with myocardial infarction: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association of body mass index (BMI) with multivessel coronary artery disease in patients with myocardial infarction.

METHODS

This study was performed in 1566 patients with myocardial infarction in the Department of Cardiology, Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University, China. Independent and dependent variables were BMI measured at baseline and multivessel coronary artery disease, respectively. The covariates examined in this study were age, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, creatinine, uric acid, bilirubin, cholesterol, triacylglycerol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, left ventricular ejection fraction, sex, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and smoking.

RESULTS

A nonlinear relationship was detected between BMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, and this was an inverted U-shaped curve and the cutoff point was 26.3 kg/m². The effect sizes and confidence intervals on the left and right sides of the inflection point were 1.10 (1.01-1.20) and 0.85 (0.74-0.97), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an obesity paradox for BMI > 26.3 kg/m². Future studies should examine the relationship between BMI and prognosis in patients with myocardial infarction, which may be important for improving the prognosis through control of BMI.

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 Comparing Complete Versus Infarct-Related Artery Revascularization in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Coronary Disease

A strategy of complete revascularization (CR) versus infarct-related artery revascularization (IRA) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) continues to be a subject of debate. We performed an updated meta-analysis to compare the 2 strategies. Outcomes of interest included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, stroke, repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction, and contrast-induced nephropathy. Ten randomized trials including 7,423 patients (CR = 3,574 and IRA = 3,849), with a follow-up of 2.0 ± 0.8 years were included. There was a significant reduction in MACE with CR versus IRA (10.7% vs 18.6%, relative risk [RR] 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51 to 0.81, p = 0.002, I² = 66%), with higher risk reduction with immediate versus stages revascularization (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.5 vs RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.89, P-interaction = 0.002). Complete revascularization was associated with lower rates of repeat revascularization (4.0% vs 11.7%, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.70, p <0.0001, I² = 81%), and a nonsignificant trend toward lower cardiovascular mortality (2.8% vs 3.7%, RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.03, p = 0.08, I² = 0%). However, there was no difference between the 2 strategies in all-cause mortality (4.6% vs 4.8%, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.12, p = 0.36, I² = 0%), myocardial infarction (5.2% vs 6.5%, RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.08, p = 0.08, I² = 30%), stroke (1.5% vs 1.2%, RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.29, p = 0.33, I² = 14%), or contrast-induced nephropathy (1.6% vs 1.2%, RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15, p = 0.78, I² = 0%). In conclusion, CR in patients with STEMI is associated with significant reduction in MACE compared with IRA. This reduction is derived mainly by the low rates of repeat revascularization in the CR group.

Complete versus culprit-only revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background

The best strategy for the treatment of the non-infarct artery in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is not yet defined.

Methods

We searched the literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared complete revascularization (CR) with infarct-related coronary artery (IRA) only revascularization in hemodynamically stable patients with STEMI. Random effect risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for clinical outcomes.

Results

Nine RCTs with 2989 patients were included. No significant difference in all-cause mortality emerged between CR and IRA-only groups (relative risk [RR] = 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52 to 1.04; p = 0.08). Compared with IRA-only, CR was associated with significantly lower rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.68; p < 0.001), cardiac death (RR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.79; p = 0.004) and repeat revascularization (RR = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.47; p < 0.001). In subgroups analysis, immediate complete revascularization (ICR) reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.97; p = 0.04), whereas staged complete revascularization (SCR) did not show any significant benefit in all-cause mortality (RR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.86; p = 0.82). Stroke, contrast-induced nephropathy and major bleeding were not different between CR and IRA-only.

Conclusions

For patients with STEMI and multivessel disease undergoing primary PCI, complete revascularization did not decrease the risk of all-cause mortality in current evidence from randomized trials. When feasible, immediate complete revascularization might be considered in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-019-1073-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Early Complete Revascularization in Hemodynamically Stable Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease

BACKGROUND

The optimal strategy and timing of revascularization in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease is unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the comparative efficacy and safety of early complete revascularization vs culprit-only or staged revascularization in this setting.

METHODS

We searched the literature for randomized clinical trials that assessed this issue. Early complete revascularization was defined as a complete revascularization achieved during the index procedure or within 72 hours. Efficacy outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes were all bleeding events, stroke, and contrast-induced acute kidney injury.

RESULTS

Nine randomized clinical trials with a total of 2837 patients were included; 1254 received early complete revascularization and 1583 were treated with other revascularization strategies. After a mean follow-up of 15.3 ± 9.4 months early complete revascularization was associated with a lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (relative risk [RR], 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.62; P < 0.00001; number needed to treat = 8), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40-0.87), and repeat revascularization (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.55) without any difference in all-cause mortality and in safety outcomes compared with culprit-only or staged revascularization. Moreover, fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization reduced the incidence of repeat revascularization compared with angiography-guided procedure (χ² = 4.36; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Early complete revascularization should be considered in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease deemed suitable for percutaneous interventions. Fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization might be superior to angiography-guided procedures in reducing need for further interventions.