Dataset Information

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.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Bajraktari G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7301199 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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:BackgroundSignificant controversy exists regarding the best approach for nonculprit vessel revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. We conducted a systematic investigation to pool data from current randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess optimal treatment strategies in this patient population.Methods and resultsA comprehensive search of SCOPUS from inception through May 2015 was performed using predefined criteria. We compared efficacy and safety outcomes of different approaches by categorizing the studies into 3 groups: (1) complete revascularization (CR) versus culprit lesion revascularization (CL) at index hospitalization, (2) CR at index hospitalization versus staged revascularization (SR) of nonculprit vessels at a separate hospitalization, and (3) comparison of SR versus CL. Eight eligible RCTs met the inclusion criteria: (1) CR versus CL (6 RCTs, n=1727) (2) CR versus SR (3 RCTs, n=311), and (3) SR versus CL (1 RCT, n=149). We observed significantly lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, revascularization, and repeat percutaneous coronary interventions among patients treated with CR and SR compared with a CL approach (P<0.05). The rates of all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, major bleeding, reinfarction, stroke, and contrast-induced nephropathy did not differ in the CR arm compared with the CL arm. The rates of these outcomes were similar in the CR and SR arms.ConclusionResults suggest that CR and SR compared with CL reduce major adverse cardiovascular event and revascularization rates primarily by lowering repeated percutaneous coronary intervention rates. We did not observe any increase in the rate of adverse events while using a CR or SR strategy compared with a CL approach. Current guidelines discouraging CR need to be reevaluated, and clinical judgment should prevail in treating multivessel coronary artery disease patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction as data from larger RCTs accumulate.