Correspondence to: Anthony A. Bavry, MD, MPH, Medical Service, Cardiology Section (111D) North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System (Malcom Randall Veterans Administration Medical Center), 1601 SW Archer Road, Gainesville, FL 32608. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

Islam Y. Elgendy MD,

Islam Y. Elgendy MD

Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida

Search for more papers by this author

Xuerong Wen PhD,

Xuerong Wen PhD

Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida

Search for more papers by this author

Ahmed Mahmoud MD,

Ahmed Mahmoud MD

Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida

Search for more papers by this author

Anthony A. Bavry MD, MPH,

Corresponding Author

Anthony A. Bavry MD, MPH

[email protected]

Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida

North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health Systems, Gainesville, Florida

First published: 03 November 2015

https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.26322

Citations: 23

Conflict of interest: Nothing to report.

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Objectives

To perform an updated meta-analysis to determine whether complete revascularization of significant coronary lesions at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) would be associated with better outcomes compared with culprit-only revascularization.

Background

Individual trials have demonstrated conflicting evidence regarding the optimum revascularization strategy at the time of primary PCI.

Methods

Clinical trials that randomized ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multi-vessel disease to a complete versus culprit-only revascularization strategy were included. Random effects summary risk ratios (RR) were constructed using a DerSimonian–Laird model. The primary outcome of interest was mortality or myocardial infarction (MI).

Results

A total of seven trials with 1,939 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with culprit-only revascularization, complete revascularization was associated with a non-significant reduction in the risk of mortality or MI (RR 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42–1.12, P = 0.14). Complete revascularization was associated with a reduced risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45–0.81, P < 0.001), due to a significant reduction in urgent revascularization (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29–0.70, P < 0.001). The risk of major bleeding and contrast-induced nephropathy was similar with both approaches (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.41–1.71, P = 0.62, and RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.42–2.12, P = 0.82).

Conclusions

Complete revascularization of all significant coronary lesions at the time of primary PCI was associated with a reduction in the risk of MACE due to reduction in the risk of urgent revascularization. This approach appears to be safe, with no excess major bleeding, or contrast-induced nephropathy. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Supporting Information

REFERENCES

1 Wald DS, Morris JK, Wald NJ, et al. Randomized trial of preventive angioplasty in myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1115–1123.
10.1056/NEJMoa1305520
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2 Gershlick AH, Khan JN, Kelly DJ, et al. Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: The CvLPRIT Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65: 963–972.
10.1016/j.jacc.2014.12.038
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3 Elgendy IY, Huo T, Mahmoud A, Bavry AA. Complete versus culprit-only revascularization in patients with multi-vessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Int J Cardiol 2015; 186: 98–103.
10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.03.163
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 Bangalore S, Toklu B, Wetterslev J. Complete versus culprit-only revascularization for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2015; 8: e002142.
10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.002142
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 Hlinomaz O. Multivessel coronary disease diagnosed at the time of primary PCI for STEMI: Complete revascularization versus conservative strategy (PRAGUE 13 trial). Presented at the EuroPCR 2015 meeting. Paris, France, May 2015.
Google Scholar
6 Engstrøm T, Kelbæk H, Helqvist S, et al. Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3—PRIMULTI): An open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 386: 665–671.
10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60648-1
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7 Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001; 323: 42–46.
10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: W65–W94.
10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177–188.
10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
10 Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315: 629–634.
10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557–560.
10.1002/sim.1186
PubMed Google Scholar
12 Thompson SG, Higgins JP. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 2002; 21: 1559–1573.
10.1002/sim.1187
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13 Ghani A, Dambrink JH, van't Hof AW, et al. Treatment of non-culprit lesions detected during primary PCI: Long-term follow-up of a randomised clinical trial. Neth Heart J 2012; 20: 347–353.
10.1007/s12471-012-0281-y
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 Politi L, Sgura F, Rossi R, et al. A randomised trial of target-vessel versus multi-vessel revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Major adverse cardiac events during long-term follow-up. Heart 2010; 96: 662–667.
10.1136/hrt.2009.177162
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15 Di Mario C, Mara S, Flavio A, et al. Single vs multivessel treatment during primary angioplasty: Results of the multicentre randomised HEpacoat for cuLPrit or multivessel stenting for Acute Myocardial Infarction (HELP AMI) Study. Int J Cardiovasc Intervent 2004; 6: 128–133.
10.1080/14628840310030441
PubMed Google Scholar
16 Vlaar PJ, Mahmoud KD, Holmes DR Jr, et al. Culprit vessel only versus multivessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel disease in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A pairwise and network meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58: 692–703.
10.1016/j.jacc.2011.03.046
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 Moretti C, D'Ascenzo F, Quadri G, et al. Management of multivessel coronary disease in STEMI patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 2015; 179: 552–557.
10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.10.035
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 Rade JJ. FFR-guided PCI–FAME may not be so fleeting after all. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 1251–1253.
10.1056/NEJMe1410336
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Shamir M. Complete vs Culprit-only Revascularization to Treat Multi-vessel Disease After Primary PCI for STEMI, clinicaltrials.gov. National Library of Medicine (US), Bethesda (MD). 2000. Available at: http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01740479 NLM Identifier: NCT01740479, accessed on 2015 May 22.
Google Scholar
20 Bittl JA, Tamis-Holland JE, Lang CD, et al. Outcomes after multivessel or culprit-Vessel intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction in patients with multivessel coronary disease: A Bayesian cross-design meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2015; 86(Suppl 1): S15–S22.
10.1002/ccd.26025
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21 Jensen LO, Terkelsen CJ, Horvath-Puho E, et al. Influence of multivessel disease with or without additional revascularization on mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 2015; 170: 70–78.
10.1016/j.ahj.2015.03.020
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22 Elgendy IY, Conti CR, Bavry AA. Fractional flow reserve: An updated review. Clin Cardiol 2014; 37: 371–380.
10.1002/clc.22273
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume88, Issue4

October 2016

Pages 501-505

SCAI Member Sign in

Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization for Patients With Multi-Vessel Disease Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Abstract

Objectives

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Supporting Information

REFERENCES

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization for Patients With Multi-Vessel Disease Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Abstract

Objectives

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Supporting Information

REFERENCES

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information