Multivessel versus culprit-only PCI in STEMI patients with multivessel disease: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Abstract Background Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicated a benefit of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to culprit vessel-only PCI in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) without cardiogenic shock. Purpose To perform a pairwise meta-analysis of RCTs, already including the recently published COMPLETE (The Complete versus Culprit-Only Revascularization Strategies to Treat Multivessel Disease after Early PCI for STEMI) trial, comparing multivessel PCI and culprit vessel-only PCI in STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multivessel PCI with culprit vessel-only PCI in STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock and multivessel coronary artery disease. Only RCTs reporting mortality or myocardial reinfarction after at least 6 months following randomization were included. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled using random-effect models. Results Nine RCTs were included in the final analysis. In total, 523 (8.3%) of 6,314 patients suffered the combined primary endpoint of death or non-fatal reinfarction. This primary endpoint was significantly reduced with multivessel PCI compared to culprit vessel-only PCI (HR 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43–0.93; p=0.03). This finding was driven by a reduction of non-fatal reinfarction (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52–0.79; p=0.001), whereas no significant reduction of all-cause death (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.44–1.35; p=0.28) or cardiovascular death (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37–1.11; p=0.09) was observed. Conclusion In STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock multivessel PCI reduced the risk of death or non-fatal reinfarction compared to culprit vessel-only PCI. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None