Mahesh Anantha Narayanan1, Yogesh N V Reddy2, Varun Sundaram3, Yuvaram N V Reddy4, Janani Baskaran5, Kanishk Agnihotri6, Apurva Badheka7, Nilesh Patel8, Abhishek Deshmukh2. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA. Electronic address: mahesh_maidsh@yahoo.com. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Center, Puducherry, India. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, Saint Peters University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. 7. Department of Cardiology, The Everett Clinic, Everett, WA, USA. 8. Department of Cardiology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-culprit percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during a ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of the published literature comparing a strategy of complete revascularization (CR) with culprit or target vessel revascularization (TVR)-only after STEMI in patients with multi-vessel disease. METHODS: We searched PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus and Google-scholar databases from inception to March-2016 for clinical trials comparing CR with TVR during PCI for STEMI. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (MH-RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for individual outcomes was calculated using random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 7 randomized trials with 2004 patients were included in the final analysis. Mean follow-up was 25.4months. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (MH-RR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.43-0.78, P<0.001), cardiac deaths (MH-RR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24-0.74, P=0.003) and repeat revascularization (MH-RR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.27-0.48, P<0.001) were much lower in the CR group when compared to TVR. However, there was no significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality (0.84, 95% CI: 0.57-1.25, P=0.394) or recurrent MI (MH-RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.34-1.26, P=0.205) between the two groups. CR appeared to be safe with no significant increase in adverse events including stroke rates (MH-RR: 2.19, 95% CI: 0.59-8.12, P=0.241), contrast induced nephropathy (MH-RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.34-1.57, P=0.423) or major bleeding episodes (MH-RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.34-1.54, P=0.399). CONCLUSIONS: CR strategy in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease is associated with reduction in MACE, cardiac mortality and need for repeat revascularization but with no decrease in the risk of subsequent MI or all-cause mortality. CR was safe however, with no increase in adverse events including stroke, stent thrombosis or contrast nephropathy when compared to TVR.
BACKGROUND: Non-culprit percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during a ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of the published literature comparing a strategy of complete revascularization (CR) with culprit or target vessel revascularization (TVR)-only after STEMI in patients with multi-vessel disease. METHODS: We searched PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus and Google-scholar databases from inception to March-2016 for clinical trials comparing CR with TVR during PCI for STEMI. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (MH-RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for individual outcomes was calculated using random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 7 randomized trials with 2004 patients were included in the final analysis. Mean follow-up was 25.4months. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (MH-RR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.43-0.78, P<0.001), cardiac deaths (MH-RR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24-0.74, P=0.003) and repeat revascularization (MH-RR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.27-0.48, P<0.001) were much lower in the CR group when compared to TVR. However, there was no significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality (0.84, 95% CI: 0.57-1.25, P=0.394) or recurrent MI (MH-RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.34-1.26, P=0.205) between the two groups. CR appeared to be safe with no significant increase in adverse events including stroke rates (MH-RR: 2.19, 95% CI: 0.59-8.12, P=0.241), contrast induced nephropathy (MH-RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.34-1.57, P=0.423) or major bleeding episodes (MH-RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.34-1.54, P=0.399). CONCLUSIONS:CR strategy in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease is associated with reduction in MACE, cardiac mortality and need for repeat revascularization but with no decrease in the risk of subsequent MI or all-cause mortality. CR was safe however, with no increase in adverse events including stroke, stent thrombosis or contrast nephropathy when compared to TVR.
Authors: Vinayak Nagaraja; Sze-Yuan Ooi; James Nolan; Adrian Large; Mark De Belder; Peter Ludman; Rodrigo Bagur; Nick Curzen; Takashi Matsukage; Fuminobu Yoshimachi; Chun Shing Kwok; Colin Berry; Mamas A Mamas Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Gani Bajraktari; Ibadete Bytyçi; Michael Y Henein; Fernando Alfonso; Ali Ahmed; Haki Jashari; Deepak L Bhatt Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc Date: 2020-06-13
Authors: Sung Woo Kwon; Sang Don Park; Jeonggeun Moon; Pyung Chun Oh; Ho Jun Jang; Hyun Woo Park; Tae Hoon Kim; Kyounghoon Lee; Jon Suh; WoongChol Kang Journal: Korean Circ J Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 3.243