Culprit-only versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention among STEMI patients complicated by cardiogenic shock in real-world practice: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

The recent randomized trials demonstrated that culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (CO-PCI) was superior to multivessel PCI (MV-PCI) among ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease (MVD) complicated by cardiogenic shock, yet the real-world scenario remains to be determined. Studies that compared CO-PCI versus MV-PCI in STEMI patients with MVD complicated by cardiogenic shock were identified by a systematic search of published articles. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated by using random-effects models. Eventually, 18 observational studies involving 73,528 patients were included. The results showed that CO-PCI was associated with lower risks of short-term renal failure (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.88; I2=14.7%) and short-term stroke (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.96; I2=0.0%) compared with immediate MV-PCI. But the risk of short-term myocardial infarction (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.22; I2=0.0%) was increased. There was no significant difference during long-term follow-up. The results remained consistent after adding the only randomized trial. Based on real-world analyses, our meta-analysis suggested that CO-PCI decreased the risks of renal failure and stroke but increased the risk of myocardial infarction relative to immediate MV-PCI during short-term follow-up in STEMI patients with MVD complicated by cardiogenic shock. If possible in clinical practice, staged MV-PCI can be given a try to decrease the risks of renal failure and stroke associated with immediate MV-PCI and myocardial infarction associated with CO-PCI. However, the conclusions need to be confirmed by further large-scale studies.