Dataset Information

FFR-guided multivessel stenting reduces urgent revascularization compared with infarct-related artery only stenting in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown fractional flow reserve-guided (FFR) multivessel stenting to be superior to infarct-related artery (IRA) only stenting in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. This effect was mainly driven by a reduction in overall repeat revascularization. However, the ability to assess the effect of this strategy on urgent revascularization or reinfarction was underpowered in individual trials. METHODS:We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science for RCTs of FFR-guided multivessel stenting versus IRA-only stenting in STEMI with multivessel disease. The outcomes of interest were death, reinfarction, urgent, and non-urgent repeat revascularization. Risk ratios (RR) were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. RESULTS:After review of 786 citations, 2 RCTs were included. The pooled results demonstrated a significant reduction in the composite of death, reinfarction, or revascularization in the FFR-guided multivessel stenting group versus IRA-only stenting group (RR [95%, Confidence Interval]: 0.49 [0.33-0.72], p<0.001). This risk reduction was driven mainly by a reduction in repeat revascularization, both urgent (0.41 [0.24-0.71], p=0.002) and non-urgent revascularization (0.31 [0.19-0.50], p<0.001). Pooled RR for reinfarction was lower in the FFR-guided strategy, but was not statistically significant (0.71[0.39-1.31], p=0.28). CONCLUSIONS:This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that a strategy of FFR-guided multivessel stenting in STEMI patients reduces not only overall repeat revascularization but also urgent revascularization. The effect on reinfarction needs to be evaluated in larger trials.

SUBMITTER: Gupta A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5758864 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

FFR-guided multivessel stenting reduces urgent revascularization compared with infarct-related artery only stenting in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Gupta Ankur A Bajaj Navkaranbir S NS Arora Pankaj P Arora Garima G Qamar Arman A Bhatt Deepak L DL

International journal of cardiology 20180201

<h4>Background</h4>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown fractional flow reserve-guided (FFR) multivessel stenting to be superior to infarct-related artery (IRA) only stenting in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. This effect was mainly driven by a reduction in overall repeat revascularization. However, the ability to assess the effect of this strategy on urgent revascularization or reinfarction was underpowered in individual trials.<h4>Met ...[more]

PMID: 29249439

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Data are limited regarding long-term outcomes in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease presenting with cardiogenic shock according to revascularization strategy. We sought to compare the 3-year clinical outcomes of patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction multivessel disease with cardiogenic shock and patients with multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and infarct-related artery (IRA)-only PCI. Methods and Results Of 13 104 patients from the nationwide, multicenter, prospective KAMIR-NIH (Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry--National Institutes of Health) registry, we selected 659 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction who had concomitant non-IRA stenosis and presented with cardiogenic shock. The primary outcome was all-cause death. Multivessel PCI was performed in 260 patients and IRA-only PCI in 399 patients. At 3 years, patients in the multivessel PCI group had a lower risk of all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.94 [P=0.024]), all-cause death or MI (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.84 [P=0.004]), and non-IRA repeat revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.10-0.50 [P<0.001]) than those in the IRA-only PCI group. The results were consistent after confounder adjustment by propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting analysis. Landmark analysis at 1 year demonstrated that the multivessel PCI group had a lower risk of recurrent MI and non-IRA repeat revascularization beyond 1 year (log-rank P=0.030 and P=0.017, respectively) than the IRA-only PCI group. Conclusions In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock, multivessel PCI was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death than IRA-only PCI at 3 years, suggesting potential benefit of non-IRA revascularization during the index hospitalization to improve long-term clinical outcomes.

Project description:Background: The relative benefit of immediate complete revascularization, staged complete revascularization, and culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of the 3 PCI strategies in this population. Methods: We followed a pre-specified protocol (PROSPERO number: CRD42020183801). A comprehensive search of the electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from inception through February 21, 2020 was conducted. Randomized trials evaluating the comparative efficacy and safety of at least 2 of the 3 PCI strategies were identified. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular mortality or myocardial infarction (MI) during the longest follow-up. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed with random-effects model. Results: Eleven trials including 6,942 patients were analyzed. Pairwise meta-analysis noted that immediate complete revascularization and staged complete revascularization were respectively associated with a 52 and 27% reduction in the risk of cardiovascular death or MI (relative risk [RR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-0.73, I2 = 0%; and RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.88, I2 = 0%, respectively), compared with culprit-only PCI. The risk of cardiovascular death or MI was not statistically different in staged and immediate complete revascularization groups (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.45-1.72, I2 = 0%). Network meta-analysis obtained almost similar results compared with pairwise meta-analysis, and immediate complete revascularization had a 77% probability of being the best strategy for reducing cardiovascular death or MI among the 3 PCI strategies. Conclusion: The current evidence suggests that both immediate and staged complete revascularization were associated with a reduction of cardiovascular death or MI compared with culprit-only PCI. Further trials are warranted to directly compare immediate vs. staged complete revascularization in this population. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, PROSPERO [CRD42020183801].

Project description:Introduction:The optimal revascularization strategy for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease is unclear. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis to determine the optimal revascularization strategy for treating these patients. Methods:Searches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, clinicaltrial.gov, and the reference lists of relevant papers were performed covering the period between the year 2000 and March 20, 2017. A pairwise analysis and a Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed to compare the effectiveness of early complete revascularization (CR) during the index hospitalization, delayed CR, and culprit only revascularization (COR). The primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which were defined as the composite of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, and all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoints were the rates of all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, and repeat revascularization. This study is registered at PROSPERO under registration number CRD42017059980. Results:Eleven randomized controlled trials including a total of 3,170 patients were identified. A pairwise meta-analysis showed that compared with COR, early CR was associated with significantly decreased risks of MACE (relative risk [RR] 0.47, 95% CI 0.39-0.56), MI (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.83), and repeat revascularization (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.27-0.46) but not of all-cause mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.52-1.16). These results were confirmed by trial sequential analysis. The network meta-analysis showed that early CR had the highest probability of being the first treatment option during MACE (89.2%), MI (83.3%), and repeat revascularization (80.4%). Conclusion:Early CR during the index hospitalization was markedly superior to COR with respect to reducing the risk of MACE, as CR significantly decreased the risks of MI and repeat revascularization compared with COR. However, further study is warranted to determine whether CR during the index hospitalization can improve survival in patients with concurrent ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. The optimal timing of CR remains inconclusive considering the small number of studies and patients included in the analysis comparing early and delayed CR.

Dataset Information

FFR-guided multivessel stenting reduces urgent revascularization compared with infarct-related artery only stenting in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

FFR-guided multivessel stenting reduces urgent revascularization compared with infarct-related artery only stenting in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets