Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Complete vs culprit-only revascularization for patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bainey, Kevin R; Mehta, Shamir R; Lai, Tony; Welsh, Robert C.
Afiliación
  • Bainey KR; Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: kevin.bainey@albertahealthservices.ca.
  • Mehta SR; Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
  • Lai T; Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
  • Welsh RC; Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Am Heart J ; 167(1): 1-14.e2, 2014 Jan.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24332136
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are most commonly treated with PCI to the culprit lesion only. Whether a strategy of complete revascularization in these patients is superior is unknown. We performed a meta-analysis comparing the benefits and risks of routine culprit-only PCI vs multivessel PCI in STEMI.

METHODS:

MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, and The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1996 to January 2011. Relevant conference abstracts were searched from January 2002 to January 2011. Studies included STEMI with multivessel disease receiving primary PCI. The primary end point was long-term mortality. Data were combined using a fixed-effects model.

RESULTS:

Of 507 citations, 26 studies (3 randomized, 23 nonrandomized; 46,324 patients, 7886 multivessel PCI and 38,438 culprit-only PCI) were included. There was no significant difference in hospital mortality with multivessel PCI vs culprit-only PCI (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 95% CI 0.98-1.25, P = .10 [randomized OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06-0.91, P = .04; nonrandomized OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.00-1.27, P = .06]). However, if multivessel PCI during index catheterization was performed, hospital mortality was increased (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.19-1.54, P < .001). When multivessel PCI was performed as a staged procedure, hospital mortality was lower (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21-0.59; P < .001; P interaction < .001). Reduced long-term mortality (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65-0.85, P < .001[randomized OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.28-1.33, P = .22; nonrandomized OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.86, P < .001]) and repeat PCI (OR 0.65; 95% 0.46-0.90, P = .01[randomized OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17-0.57, P < .001; nonrandomized OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.59-1.31, P = .54]) were observed with multivessel PCI.

CONCLUSION:

Overall, staged multivessel PCI improved short- and long-term survival and reduced repeat PCI. Still, large randomized trials are required to confirm the benefits of staged multivessel PCI in STEMI.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria / Intervención Coronaria Percutánea / Revascularización Miocárdica Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Am Heart J Año: 2014 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria / Intervención Coronaria Percutánea / Revascularización Miocárdica Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Am Heart J Año: 2014 Tipo del documento: Article