CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

急性冠脉综合征

Abstract

Recommended Article

Effect of a Restrictive vs Liberal Blood Transfusion Strategy on Major Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anemia: The REALITY Randomized Clinical Trial Improved outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction during the last 20 years are related to implementation of evidence-based treatments: experiences from the SWEDEHEART registry 1995-2014 Clinical and Angiographic Features of Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and Acute Myocardial Infarction Canadian spontaneous coronary artery dissection cohort study: in-hospital and 30-day outcomes Comparison of the Preventive Efficacy of Rosuvastatin Versus Atorvastatin in Post-Contrast Acute Kidney Injury in Patients With ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Relations between implementation of new treatments and improved outcomes in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction during the last 20 years: experiences from SWEDEHEART registry 1995 to 2014 The year in cardiovascular medicine 2020: acute coronary syndromes and intensive cardiac care Evaluation and Management of Nonculprit Lesions in STEMI

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.