CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

Culprit versus multivessel coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials Sex differences in discharge destination following acute myocardial infarction Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes Successful catheter ablation of electrical storm after myocardial infarction Decade-Long Trends (2001 to 2011) in the Use of Evidence-Based Medical Therapies at the Time of Hospital Discharge for Patients Surviving Acute Myocardial Infarction Incidence and prognostic implication of unrecognized myocardial scar characterized by cardiac magnetic resonance in diabetic patients without clinical evidence of myocardial infarction Balloon-to-door time: emerging evidence for shortening hospital stay after primary PCI for STEMI Nonsystem reasons for delay in door-to-balloon time and associated in-hospital mortality: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry
|<<... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...>>|

Review Article2018 Mar;29(2):151-160.

JOURNAL：Coron Artery Dis. Article Link

Culprit versus multivessel coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Vaidya SR1, Qamar A, Arora S et al. Keywords: Acute Coronary Syndromes; Myocardial Infarction; Coronary Heart Disease

201803

BACKGROUND - The 2015 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association update on primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) recommended PCI of the non-infarct-related artery at the time of primary PCI (class IIb recommendation). Despite evidence supporting complete revascularization in STEMI, its benefit on mortality rates is uncertain.


METHODS - We searched all available databases for randomized controlled trials comparing complete multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (CMV PCI) with infarct-artery-only revascularization in patients with STEMI. Summary risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for both the efficacy and safety outcomes.

RESULTS - Nine randomized controlled trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria, yielding 2991 patients. Follow-up periods ranged from 6 to 36 months. Compared with infarct-related artery-only PCI, CMV PCI was associated with significantly lower rates of major adverse cardiac events [relative risk (RR)=0.54, 95% CI=0.41-0.71; P<0.00001], cardiovascular mortality (RR=0.48, 95% CI=0.28-0.80; P=0.005), and repeat revascularization (RR=0.38, 95% CI=0.30-0.47; P<0.00001). Although, contrast-induced nephropathy and major bleed rates were comparable between both groups, CMV PCI failed to show any reduction in all-cause mortality (RR=0.75, 95% CI=0.53-1.07; P=0.11) and nonfatal myocardial infarction (RR=0.69, 95% CI=0.43-1.10; P=0.12).

CONCLUSION - Our results suggest that in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, complete revascularization is safe, and is associated with reduced risks of major adverse cardiac events and cardiac death along with a reduced need for repeat revascularization. However, it showed no beneficial effect on all-cause mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction.
>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top