Meta-Analysis Comparing Complete or Culprit Only Revascularization in Patients With Multivessel Disease Presenting With Cardiogenic Shock.

ABSTRACT

The optimal strategy for patients with an acute myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel (MV) coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains unknown. We conducted a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials and observational studies that reported adjusted effect measures to evaluate the association of MV-PCI (percutaneous coronary intervention), compared with culprit only (C)-PCI, with cardiovascular events in patients admitted for CS and MV disease. We identified 12 studies (n = 1 randomized controlled trials, n = 11 observational) that included 7,417 patients (n = 1,809 treated with MV-PCI and n = 5,608 with C-PCI). When compared with C-PCI, MV-PCI was not associated with an increased risk of short-term death (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87 to 1.48, p = 0.35 and adjusted OR [ORadj] 1.00, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.43, p = 1.00). In-hospital and/or short-term mortality tended to be higher with MV-PCI, when compared with C-PCI, for CS patients needing dialysis (ß 0.12, 95% CI from 0.049 to 0.198; p= 0.001), whereas MV-PCI was associated with lower in-hospital and/or short-term mortality in patients with an anterior MI (ß -0.022, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01; p <0.001). MV-PCI strategy was associated with a more frequent need for dialysis or contrast-induced nephropathy after revascularization (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.75, p = 0.02). In conclusion, MV-PCI seems not to increase risk of death during short- or long-term follow-up when compared with C-PCI in patients admitted for MV coronary artery disease and MI complicated by CS. Furthermore, it appears a more favorable strategy in patients with anterior MI, whereas the increased risk for AKI and its negative prognostic impact should be considered in decision-making process. Further studies are needed to confirm our hypothesis on in these subpopulations of CS patients.