RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Traditionally ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multivessel coronary artery disease is treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to culprit lesion only. The benefit of multivessel (MV) PCI among STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock is unclear. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database were searched from 1996 to 2019, for studies of patients with STEMI without cardiogenic shock, who underwent PCI. Only randomized controlled trials comparing culprit PCI to MV PCI vs culprit vessel PCI were included for pairwise meta-analysis. All-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, reinfarction, revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were compared. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed for outcome variables. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials contributed 6930 patients meeting inclusion criteria. Three thousand three hundred seventy-six underwent MV PCI, and 3554 underwent culprit PCI. Our analysis demonstrated no significant difference in all-cause mortality. MV PCI had a lower risk of cardiac mortality, reinfarction, MACE and repeat revascularization compared to culprit PCI (P values <0.05). TSA showed futility for further trials to detect all-cause mortality benefit and lack of firm evidence of benefit in cardiac mortality and re-infarction, but firm evidence of benefit in revascularization and MACE. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, MV PCI strategy was beneficial in reducing cardiac mortality, reinfarction, repeat revascularization, and MACE but there was no all-cause mortality benefit when compared to culprit only PCI strategy. Evidence for benefit in cardiac mortality and re-infarction is not robust per TSA.