Meta-Analysis of Multivessel Versus Culprit-Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Coronary Disease

Abstract

Even in the era of contemporary drug-eluting stents, it is not clear whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for nonculprit lesions can improve long-term outcomes in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) with multivessel coronary disease. Relevant studies published through August 2014 were searched and identified in the electronic databases. Summary estimates were obtained using a random-effects model. From 368 initial citations, 8 observational studies with 8,425 patients (3,227 multivessel and 5,198 culprit-only PCI) were included. Mean follow-up duration was 18months. There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (odds ratios [ORs] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70 to 1.04) and myocardial infarction (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.35). However, multivessel PCI was associated with a significantly lower rate of repeat revascularization (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.00). Comparison of multivessel versus culprit-only PCI disclosed OR for major adverse cardiac events of 0.74 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.97). In conclusion, multivessel PCI reduced repeat revascularization without significant benefits in terms of mortality or myocardial infarction at the long-term follow-up in patients with NSTE-ACS and multivessel coronary disease. Future randomized studies that examine the safety and efficacy of multivessel PCI in NSTE-ACS are warranted.