Dataset Information

Staged versus One-Time Complete Revascularization with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in STEMI Patients with Multivessel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

In patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the preferred intervention is percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Whether staged PCI (S-PCI) or one-time complete PCI (MV-PCI) is more beneficial and safer in terms of treating the non-culprit vessel during the primary PCI procedure is unclear. We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized and non-randomized controlled trials comparing S-PCI with MV-PCI in patients with acute STEMI and MVD.

Methods

Studies of STEMI with multivessel disease receiving primary PCI were searched in PUBMED, EMBASE and The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials from January 2004 to December 2014. The primary end points were long-term rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and their components-mortality, reinfarction, and target-vessel revascularization. Data were combined using a fixed-effects model.

Results

Of 507 citations, 10 studies (4 randomized, 6 nonrandomized; 820 patients, 562 staged PCI and 347 one-time, complete multi-vessel PCI) were included. S-PCI compared to MV-PCI significantly reduced mortality both long-term (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29-0.66, P<0.0001, I2 = 0%) and short-term (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.1-0.51, P = 0.0003, I2 = 0%). There was a trend toward reduced risk of MACE with s-PCI compared with MV-PCI (OR 0.83, 0.62-1.12, P = 0.22, I2 = 0%). No difference between S-PCI and MV-PCI was observed in reinfarction (OR 0.97, 0.61-1.55, P = 0.91, I2 = 0%), or target vessel revascularization (OR1.17, 95% CI 0.81-1.69, P = 0.40, I2 = 8%).

Conclusions

The staged strategy for non-culprit lesions improved short- and long-term survival and should remain the standard approach to primary PCI in patients with STEMI; one-time complete multivessel PCI may be associated with greater mortality risk. However, additional large, randomized trials are required to confirm the optimal timing of a staged procedure on the non-culprit vessel in STEMI.

SUBMITTER: Li Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5249143 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Staged versus One-Time Complete Revascularization with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in STEMI Patients with Multivessel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Li Zhenwei Z Zhou Yijiang Y Xu Qingqing Q Chen Xiaomin X

PloS one 20170120 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>In patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the preferred intervention is percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Whether staged PCI (S-PCI) or one-time complete PCI (MV-PCI) is more beneficial and safer in terms of treating the non-culprit vessel during the primary PCI procedure is unclear. We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized and non-randomized controlled trials comparing S-PCI with MV-PCI in patients with acute STEMI and MVD.<h4>Methods</ ...[more]

PMID: 28107455

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe optimal management of patients found to have multivessel disease while undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is uncertain.ObjectivesCvLPRIT (Complete versus Lesion-only Primary PCI trial) is a U.K. open-label randomized study comparing complete revascularization at index admission with treatment of the infarct-related artery (IRA) only.MethodsAfter they provided verbal assent and underwent coronary angiography, 296 patients in 7 U.K. centers were randomized through an interactive voice-response program to either in-hospital complete revascularization (n = 150) or IRA-only revascularization (n = 146). Complete revascularization was performed either at the time of P-PCI or before hospital discharge. Randomization was stratified by infarct location (anterior/nonanterior) and symptom onset (≤ 3 h or >3 h). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, and ischemia-driven revascularization within 12 months.ResultsPatient groups were well matched for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary endpoint occurred in 10.0% of the complete revascularization group versus 21.2% in the IRA-only revascularization group (hazard ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval: 0.24 to 0.84; p = 0.009). A trend toward benefit was seen early after complete revascularization (p = 0.055 at 30 days). Although there was no significant reduction in death or MI, a nonsignificant reduction in all primary endpoint components was seen. There was no reduction in ischemic burden on myocardial perfusion scintigraphy or in the safety endpoints of major bleeding, contrast-induced nephropathy, or stroke between the groups.ConclusionsIn patients presenting for P-PCI with multivessel disease, index admission complete revascularization significantly lowered the rate of the composite primary endpoint at 12 months compared with treating only the IRA. In such patients, inpatient total revascularization may be considered, but larger clinical trials are required to confirm this result and specifically address whether this strategy is associated with improved survival.

Project description:BackgroundRecently, several randomized trials have noted improved outcomes with staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of nonculprit vessels in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. However, it remains unclear whether diabetes status affects the outcomes after different revascularization strategies. This study thus compared the impact of diabetes status on long-term outcomes after staged complete revascularization with that after culprit-only PCI.MethodsFrom January 2006 to December 2015, 371 diabetic patients (staged PCI: 164, culprit-only PCI: 207) and 834 nondiabetic patients (staged PCI: 412, culprit-only PCI: 422) with STEMI and multivessel disease were enrolled. The primary endpoint was 5-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke or unplanned revascularization.ResultsThe rate of the 5-year composite primary endpoint for diabetic patients was close to that for nondiabetic patients (34.5% vs. 33.7%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.012, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.815-1.255). In nondiabetic patients, the 5-year risks of MACCE (31.8% vs. 35.5%; adjusted HR 0.638, 95% CI 0.500-0.816), MI (4.6% vs. 9.2%; adjusted HR 0.358, 95% CI 0.200-0.641), unplanned revascularization (19.9% vs. 24.9%; adjusted HR 0.532, 95% CI 0.393-0.720), and the composite of cardiac death, MI or stroke (11.4% vs. 15.2%; adjusted HR 0.621, 95% CI 0.419-0.921) were significantly lower after staged PCI than after culprit-only PCI. In contrast, no significant difference was found between the two groups with respect to MACCE, MI, unplanned revascularization, and the composite of cardiac death, MI or stroke in diabetic patients. Significant interactions were found between diabetes status and revascularization assignment for the composite of cardiac death, MI or stroke (Pinteraction?=?0.013), MI (Pinteraction?=?0.005), and unplanned revascularization (Pinteraction?=?0.013) at 5 years. In addition, the interaction tended to be significant for the primary endpoint of MACCE (Pinteraction?=?0.053). Moreover, the results of propensity score-matching analysis were concordant with the overall analysis in both diabetic and nondiabetic population.ConclusionsIn patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, diabetes is not an independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular events at 5 years. In nondiabetic patients, an approach of staged complete revascularization is superior to culprit-only PCI, whereas the advantage of staged PCI is attenuated in diabetic patients. Trial registration This study was not registered in an open access database.

Project description:ObjectiveWe 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).BackgroundRecent 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.MethodsStudies 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.ResultsSixteen 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.ConclusionsFor 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.

Project description: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.

Project description:AimOptimal revascularization strategy in multivessel (MV) coronary artery disease (CAD) eligible for percutaneous management (PCI) and surgery remains unresolved. We evaluated, in a randomized clinical trial, residual myocardial ischemia (RI) and clinical outcomes of MV-CAD revascularization using coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), or MV-PCI.MethodsConsecutive MV-CAD patients (n = 155) were randomized (1 : 1 : 1) to conventional CABG (LIMA-LAD plus venous grafts) or HCR (MIDCAB LIMA-LAD followed by PCI for remaining vessels) or MV-PCI (everolimus-eluting CoCr stents) under Heart Team agreement on equal technical and clinical feasibility of each strategy. SPECT at 12 months (primary endpoint of RI that the trial was powered for; a measure of revascularization midterm efficacy and an independent predictor of long-term prognosis) preceded routine angiographic control.ResultsData are given, respectively, for the CABG, HCR, and MV-PCI arms. Incomplete revascularization rate was 8.0% vs. 7.7% vs. 5.7% (p=0.71). Hospital stay was 13.8 vs. 13.5 vs. 4.5 days (p < 0.001), and sick-leave duration was 23 vs. 16 vs. 8 weeks (p < 0.001). At 12 months, RI was 5 (2, 9)% vs. 5 (3, 7)% vs. 6 (3, 10)% (median; Q1, Q3) with noninferiority p values of 0.0006 (HCR vs. CABG) and 0.016 (MV-PCI vs. CABG). Rates of angiographic graft stenosis/occlusion or in-segment restenosis were 20.4% vs. 8.2% vs. 5.9% (p=0.05). Clinical target vessel/graft failure occurred in 12.0% vs. 11.5% vs. 11.3% (p=0.62). Major adverse cardiac and cerebral event (MACCE) rate was similar (12% vs. 13.4% vs. 13.2%; p=0.83).ConclusionIn this first randomized controlled study comparing CABG, HCR, and MV-PCI, residual myocardial ischemia and MACCE were similar at 12 months. There was no midterm indication of any added value of HCR. Hospital stay and sick-leave duration were shortest with MV-PCI. While longer-term follow-up is warranted, these findings may impact patient and physician choices and healthcare resources utilization. This trial is registered with NCT01699048.

Dataset Information

Staged versus One-Time Complete Revascularization with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in STEMI Patients with Multivessel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Staged versus One-Time Complete Revascularization with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in STEMI Patients with Multivessel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure