CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes The Wait for High-Sensitivity Troponin Is Over—Proceed Cautiously Improvement of Clinical Outcome in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Between 1999 And 2016 in China : The Prospective, Multicenter Registry MOODY Study Acute Myocardial Injury in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 Infection: A Review Another Nail in the Coffin for Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsion in Acute Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock Cardiac Shock Care Centers: JACC Review Topic of the Week Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Circulating MicroRNAs and Monocyte-Platelet Aggregate Formation in Acute Coronary Syndrome

Review ArticleVolume 11, Issue 9, May 2018

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Complete Revascularization During Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Reduces Death and Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Multivessel Disease-Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression of Randomized Trials

V Pasceri, G Patti, F Pelliccia et al. Keywords: coronary interventions; meta-analysis; meta-regression; multivessel disease; STEMI

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - The aim of this study was to compare complete revascularization with a culprit-only strategy in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel disease by a meta-analysis of randomized trials.


BACKGROUND - Although several trials have compared complete with culprit-only revascularization in ST-segment elevation MI, it remains unclear whether complete revascularization may lead to improvement in hard endpoints (death and MI).

METHODS - Randomized trials comparing complete revascularization with culprit-only revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation MI without cardiogenic shock were identified by a systematic search of published research. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed, comparing clinical outcomes in the 2 groups.

RESULTS - Eleven trials were identified, including a total of 3,561 patients. Compared with a culprit-only strategy, complete revascularization significantly reduced risk for death or MI (relative risk [RR]: 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58 to 0.99; p = 0.04). Meta-regression showed that performing complete revascularization at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was associated with better outcomes (p = 0.016). The 6 trials performing complete revascularization during primary PCI (immediate revascularization) were associated with a significant reduction in risk for both total mortality (RR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.97; p = 0.03) and MI (RR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.66; p < 0.001), whereas the 5 trials performing only staged revascularization did not show any significant benefit in either total mortality (RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.62; p = 0.87) or MI (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.68; p = 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS - When feasible, complete revascularization with PCI can significantly reduce the combined endpoint of death and MI. Complete revascularization performed during primary PCI was also associated with significant reductions in both total mortality and MI, whereas staged revascularization did not improve these outcomes.