Management of multivessel coronary disease in STEMI patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Introduction
Forty percent of patients with STEMI (ST segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction) present with multivessel coronary disease (CAD) [1], [2] with a detrimental impact on prognosis and on freedom from recurrent cardiac events [3].
The optimal management of these patients, apart from those with cardiogenic shock, remains to be determined.
From a physiopathological point of view, plaques determining coronary stenosis not related to the culprit lesion may be evaluated either as a chronic condition [3], or as an expression of multiple unstable coronary lesions [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] with an unpredictable evolution.
Clinically these different concepts have been translated into at least three strategies. The most exploited one remains the “culprit only”, that is to treat only the lesion related to STEMI presentation, with subsequent decisions taken according to the presence of documented ischemia [9]. Alternatively, non-culprit lesions may be treated during the primary PCI (percutaneous coronary intervention) procedure [9] although with contrasting results around safety [11], [12] and adverse events during index hospitalization [13]. The meta-analysis of Vlaar et al. [18] demonstrated a substantial midterm survival benefit for those undergoing staged complete revascularization and a reduction in survival for those treated with complete revascularization during primary PCI. This paper, however, was based on pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational data not adjusted through multivariate analysis: this lack of appraisal of severity and extent of coronary disease may have led to a high risk of selection bias involved in operators' decision to proceed with culprit versus multi-vessel PCI and may have influenced survival in this setting, as demonstrated by the recent PRAMI trial [12].
We therefore performed this meta-analysis to determine the best practice for STEMI patients with multivessel disease.
Section snippets
Methods
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) amendment to the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) statement, and recommendations from the Cochrane Collaboration and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were followed during the development of the present systematic review [16], [17], [18].
Results
568 studies were appraised at the abstract level (Fig. 1): nine [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] were excluded for lack of multivariate adjustment, one [29] because it enrolled only patients in cardiogenic shock and one [29] because it did not compare culprit versus complete PCI [30]. Finally thirteen [14], [15], [16], [17], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] were included in the systematic review, with two of them comparing revascularization both
Discussion
The present meta-analysis demonstrated that: a) complete PCI when compared to culprit only PCI for STEMI patients with multivessel disease reduces need for subsequent revascularization; b) short term event rates are also not increased after a complete revascularization during primary PCI; and c) both of the two strategies about multivessel PCI (during primary PCI and during index hospitalization) perform similarly regarding to long term outcomes.
Management of residual coronary disease after a
Conclusion
Complete revascularization performed during primary PCI or index hospitalizations for patients presenting with STEMI appears safe at short term follow-up and offers a reduction in repeated revascularization at one year.
Contributorship statement
CM and FDA conceived the paper.
FDA performed the analysis.
The other authors wrote the paper.
References (53)
- et al.
Comparison of mortality rates in women versus men presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
Am. J. Cardiol.
(Mar 1 2011) - et al.
Angioscopic follow-up study of coronary ruptured plaques in nonculprit lesions
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(2005) - et al.
Plaque rupture and intracoronary thrombus in nonculprit vessels: an eyewitness account
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(2005) - et al.
Atherosclerotic coronary plaque regression and the risk of adverse cardiovascular events: a meta-regression of randomized clinical trials
Atherosclerosis
(Jan 2013) - et al.
C-reactive protein and multiple complex coronary artery plaques in patients with primary unstable angina
Atherosclerosis
(2002) - et al.
Culprit vessel only versus multivessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel disease inpatients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a pairwise and network meta-analysis
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(2011) - et al.
Potential pitfalls of meta-analyses of observational studies in cardiovascular research
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(2012) - et al.
Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses
Lancet
(1999) - et al.
Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease and acute myocardial infarction
Am. Heart J.
(2004) - et al.
Culprit only versus complete coronary revascularization during primary PCI
Int. J. Cardiol.
(2008)
Prevalence, predictors, and in-hospital outcomes of non-infarct artery intervention during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry)
Am. J. Cardiol.
Culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus multivessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease
JACC Cardiovasc. Interv.
Initial experience with multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention during mechanical reperfusion for acute myocardial infarction
Am. J. Cardiol.
Importance of complete revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention
Am. Heart J.
Culprit-only or multivessel revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes: an American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Database Registry report
Am. Heart J.
In unstable angina or non-ST-segment acute coronary syndrome, should patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergo multivessel or culprit-only stenting?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
Stent thrombosis with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis
Lancet
Radial versus femoral randomized investigation in ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: the RIFLE-STEACS (Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome) study
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
Comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor loading doses in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: RAPID (Rapid Activity of Platelet Inhibitor Drugs) primary PCI study
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
Are propensity scores really superior to standard multivariable analysis?
Contemp. Clin. Trials
Multiple complex coronary plaques in patients with acute myocardial infarction
N. Engl. J. Med.
Prevalence and non-invasive predictors of left main or three-vessel coronary disease: evidence from a collaborative international meta-analysis including 22 740 patients
Heart
Acute coronary syndromes in human immunodeficiency virus patients: a meta-analysis investigating adverse event rates and the role of antiretroviral therapy
Eur. Heart J.
A prospective natural-history study of coronary atherosclerosis
N. Engl. J. Med.
Di Discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy over 12 months after acute coronary syndromes increases risk for adverse events in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis
J. Interv. Cardiol.
Ischemia-related lesion characteristics in patients with stable or unstable angina. A study with intracoronary angioscopy and ultrasound
Circulation
Cited by (38)
Gender differences in the development of heart failure after acute coronary syndrome: Insight from the CORALYS registry
2024, International Journal of CardiologyPercutaneous Coronary Intervention in Multi-Vessel Disease
2022, Cardiovascular Revascularization MedicineAverage daily ischemic versus bleeding risk in patients with ACS undergoing PCI: Insights from the BleeMACS and RENAMI registries
2020, American Heart JournalCitation Excerpt :Of note, the results of the analysis differ among specific patient cohorts including those with NSTE-ACS, incomplete revascularization, and ticagrelor use. Complete revascularization in both STEMI and NSTE-ACS has been associated with improved event-free survival22-25 and with reductions in both mortality and recurrent ischemic events. In large registries,22,26 complete revascularization has been achieved in less than half of the patients, resulting in increased ischemia due to disease progression and thrombosis of nonculprit lesions.27,28
Complete Versus Culprit-Only Lesion Intervention in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes
2018, Journal of the American College of CardiologyOptimal percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: An updated, large-scale systematic review and meta-analysis
2017, International Journal of CardiologyCitation Excerpt :Additionally, several past systematic reviews have also been conducted, but most of them only limit their context in CR versus COR, not including SCR or ICR individually; and their results are conflicting at best. A few of them strongly discouraged the practice of CR [14–16] and others only endorsed CR for a reduction in certain outcomes [17–27]. Of note, while using the same population from seven RCTs, Bainey [28] does not find a sufficient evidence of the support of CR whereas Villablanca [29] is strongly in favor of CR, citing its advantage in reducing major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiovascular mortality and repeat revascularization.
Collateral filling efficiency of comorbid chronic total occlusion segment on short-term mortality in ST-elevation myocardial infarction
2017, International Journal of CardiologyCitation Excerpt :Mortality demonstrated a linear decrease with increasing Rentrop grade. MVD has a higher mortality than SVD in coronary artery disease, and this adverse impact is marked in STEMI despite the fact that many remarkable advances have been improved their mortality [14–18]. The frequency of comorbid CTO in STEMI patients has been reported to be around 4% to 13% [4,19–26], and is regarded as a critical co-morbidity because it leads to hemodynamic instability [2,3,27].