Pedro A Villablanca1, David F Briceno2, Daniele Massera2, Ota Hlinomaz3, Marissa Lombardo4, Anna E Bortnick2, Mark A Menegus2, Robert T Pyo2, Mario J Garcia2, Farouk Mookadam5, Harish Ramakrishna6, Jose Wiley2, Michela Faggioni7, George D Dangas7. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, USA. Electronic address: pedrovillablanca@hotmail.com. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, USA. 3. International Clinical Research Center, St. Anne University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 5. Cardiovascular Division, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Scottsdale, AZ, USA. 6. Division of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Scottsdale, AZ, USA. 7. The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients with concomitant multivessel (MV) coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with poor outcomes. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit-lesion only (CLO) as compared with a MV PCI approach to revascularization remains uncertain. Our objective is to gain a better understanding of the efficacy and safety of CLO as compared with MV PCI in patients with STEMI by conducting an updated meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register, the ClinicalTrials.gov Website, and Google Scholar databases of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included, enrolling a total of 2006 patients. We found that there was a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.90), cardiovascular mortality (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.80), and repeat revascularization (RRV) (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.51) favoring MV over the CLO approach for patients undergoing primary PCI. The number needed to treat in order to prevent one CV mortality, RRV, or MACE event is 47, 11, and 16 patients, respectively. No differences were observed between MV vs. CLO PCI for subsequent myocardial infarction (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.40-1.39), all-cause mortality (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.15), non-cardiovascular mortality (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.74-2.48), all-bleeding events (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.40-1.65), contrast-induced nephropathy (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.33-1.54), and stroke (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.47-3.46). CONCLUSIONS: MV PCI significantly reduces the rate of MACE, CV mortality, and RRV without significant harm as compared to CLO PCI.
BACKGROUND: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients with concomitant multivessel (MV) coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with poor outcomes. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit-lesion only (CLO) as compared with a MV PCI approach to revascularization remains uncertain. Our objective is to gain a better understanding of the efficacy and safety of CLO as compared with MV PCI in patients with STEMI by conducting an updated meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register, the ClinicalTrials.gov Website, and Google Scholar databases of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included, enrolling a total of 2006 patients. We found that there was a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.90), cardiovascular mortality (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.80), and repeat revascularization (RRV) (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.51) favoring MV over the CLO approach for patients undergoing primary PCI. The number needed to treat in order to prevent one CV mortality, RRV, or MACE event is 47, 11, and 16 patients, respectively. No differences were observed between MV vs. CLO PCI for subsequent myocardial infarction (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.40-1.39), all-cause mortality (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.15), non-cardiovascular mortality (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.74-2.48), all-bleeding events (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.40-1.65), contrast-induced nephropathy (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.33-1.54), and stroke (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.47-3.46). CONCLUSIONS: MV PCI significantly reduces the rate of MACE, CV mortality, and RRV without significant harm as compared to CLO PCI.
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: Pedro A Villablanca; Wilman Olmedo; Michael Weinreich; Tanush Gupta; Divyanshu Mohananey; Felipe N Albuquerque; Ibrahim Kassas; David Briceño; Cristina Sanina; Thomas A Brevik; Emily Ong; Harish Ramakrishna; Michael Attubato; Mark Menegus; Jose Wiley; Ankur Kalra Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Anna E Bortnick; Sanyog G Shitole; Hayder Hashim; Pankaj Khullar; Michael Park; Michael Weinreich; Stephen Seibert; Judah Rauch; Giora Weisz; Jorge R Kizer Journal: Coron Artery Dis Date: 2022-05-01 Impact factor: 1.717
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