Culprit-only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Research Articles

German Cardiac Arrest Registry (G-CAR): results of the pilot phase

Abstract Background/Introduction In Europe, over 30.000 persons per year suffer from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Despite medical progress, survival rates with good neurological outcome remain low. For many important clinical issues, no or only insufficient evidence from randomised trials is available. Therefore, a systemic and standardised acquisition of the treatment course and of the outcome of OHCA patients is warranted. Purpose The German Cardiac Arrest Registry (G-CAR) is an observational, prospective, multicentre registry under the aegis of the German National Cardiac Society. It determines the characteristics, initial treatment strategies, invasive procedures, revascularisation therapies and the use of mechanical circulatory support devices with a focus on extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR). It includes a prospective 12-month follow-up evaluating mortality, neurological outcomes and several patient-reported outcomes in the psychosocial domain, figure 1. Herein, we describe the first results of the pilot phase; more data will be available at the time of the ESC congress. Methods and Results In a pilot phase of 16 months, 15 national centres included 480 consecutive OHCA patients ≥18 years. Median age of the patients was 67 (interquartile range 57;76) years, 74.4% were male. 77.5% of the events were witnessed; bystander CPR was performed in 77.4%. Initial rhythm was shockable in 46.5%. 28.5% of the patients had ongoing CPR at hospital admission. eCPR was performed in 14.1% of the patients. Main presumed underlying causes of CPR were acute coronary syndromes and/or cardiogenic shock in 53.3% followed by primary arrhythmias (7.9%) and hypoxia (5.2%). In 35.2%, ST-segment elevations were observed after return of spontaneous circulation, mostly (62.1%) with an anterior location. In total, 66.6% of the patients underwent coronary angiography. In 71.5%, angiography was performed immediately, in 23.8% within 24 hours and in 4.7% in an elective setting. The LAD was the culprit lesion in 35.8%, the RCA in 17.7%, the LCX in 10.6% and the LM in 5.1%. In 30.3%, there was either no or an unclear culprit lesion. Regarding the strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), culprit-only PCI was performed in 74.5%, multivessel PCI in 25.5%. Targeted temperature management was performed in 79.8%, with an invasive approach and non-invasive approach in approximately 50% each. In-hospital mortality was 69.2%, with anoxic brain damage being the main presumed cause of death (37.3%) followed by circulatory failure in 26.2%. Conclusions G-CAR is a multicenter German registry for adult OHCA patients including long-term follow-up. Primary aim is a better understanding of the determinants of acute and long-term outcomes with the perspective of an optimised treatment. Parallel to further in-depth analyses of the pilot phase including patient-reported outcomes, scaling up of G-CAR to a national level is envisaged.Registry flow-chartFirst results pilot phase G-CAR

Culprit-only versus immediate multi-vessel revascularization in patients with AMI complicated by advanced cardiogenic shock undergoing VA-ECMO

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): This study was supported by unrestricted grants from the Korean Society of Interventional Cardiology. Aims Despite the benefit of culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, the optimal revascularization strategy for a refractory cardiogenic shock (CS) requiring mechanical circulatory support devices remains controversial. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between the culprit-only and immediate multi-vessel PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by CS who underwent venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). Methods and Results This study was patient-pooled data from the RESCUE and SMC-ECMO registries. A total of 408 AMI patients with multi-vessel disease who underwent VA-ECMO due to refractory CS were included in this analysis. The study population was classified into culprit-only versus immediate multi-vessel PCI according to non-culprit lesion (NCL) treatment strategies. The co-primary endpoints were 30-day mortality or renal-replacement therapy and 12-month follow-up mortality. Among the study population, 241 (59.1%) underwent culprit-only PCI and 167 (40.9%) underwent immediate multi-vessel PCI. Compared with culprit-only PCI, immediate multi-vessel PCI was associated with significantly lower risks of 30-day mortality or renal-replacement therapy (66.8% vs. 54.5%, p=0.02) and all-cause mortality during 12 months of follow-up (59.5% vs. 47.8%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53–0.92, p=0.01) in patients with AMI and CS who underwent VA-ECMO. These results were also consistent in the 290 pairs of propensity score-matched population (55.6% vs. 46.1%, HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.51–0.98, p=0.04). Conclusion Among AMI patients with multi-vessel disease complicated by advanced CS, immediate multi-vessel PCI might be associated with improved clinical outcomes in those undergoing VA-ECMO.

Complete versus culprit-only revascularization in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease

Introduction/Objective. The optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with non-STelevated myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) is still not clear. The aim of our study was to examine intrahospital and long-term major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in this group of patients. Methods. This retrospective study included 225 patients with NSTEMI and multivessel CAD treated with PCI at the Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases of Vojvodina. Three groups were formed: complete one-stage PCI; complete multi-stage PCI, and culprit-only PCI. We analyzed intrahospital and one-year follow-up MACCE and mortality after three years in all three groups. Results. Complete one-stage PCI was performed in 112 (49.8%), complete multi-stage PCI in 70 (31.3%), and culprit-only PCI in 43 (19.1%) patients. Patients with multi-stage complete PCI had the lowest mortality in comparison with one-stage and culprit-only PCI, both intrahospital (0% vs. 0.9% and 20.9%, respectively, p < 0.0005) and after one year (0% vs. 2.7% and 30.2%, respectively, p < 0.0005) and three years (4.3% vs. 5.4% and 32.6%, respectively, p < 0.0005). There was no significant difference in other MACCE between the groups, both intrahospital and after one year. Conclusion. In our study, multi-stage PCI significantly reduces intrahospital, one-year and three-year follow-up mortality in patients with NSTEMI and multivessel CAD.

Multivessel vs. culprit vessel-only percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with and without cardiogenic shock.

Early revascularization of the culprit vessel is the most effective treatment for reducing the risk of mortality from acute STEMI with and without cardiogenic shock. However, the most recent trends and impact of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during the index hospitalization on in-hospital outcomes are unknown. The National Inpatient Sample was queried from October 2015 to 2019 for hospitalizations with STEMI. The impact of multivessel PCI on in-hospital outcomes of patients with and without cardiogenic shock was evaluated. Of 624,605 STEMI hospitalizations treated with PCI, 12.5% were complicated by cardiogenic shock. Among hospitalizations without cardiogenic shock, 15.7% were treated by multivessel PCI, which declined from 20.8% in 2015 to 13.9% in 2019 (P trend < 0.001). Multivessel and culprit-only PCI had similar rates of In-hospital mortality (2.4 vs. 2.3%, p = 0.027) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; 7.4 vs. 7.2%, p = 0.072). Among hospitalizations with cardiogenic shock, 22.1% were treated by multivessel PCI, which declined from 29.2% in 2015 to 19.4% in 2019 (P trend < 0.001). Multivessel PCI was associated with higher rates of in-hospital mortality (30.9 vs. 28.4%, p < 0.001) and MACCE (39.9 vs. 36.5%, p < 0.001) than culprit-only PCI. The frequency of multivessel PCI for STEMI with and without cardiogenic shock is declining. Multivessel PCI is associated with worse in-hospital outcomes for STEMI with cardiogenic shock but not for STEMI without cardiogenic shock.

Multivessel versus Culprit-Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Background: There is uncertainty whether multivessel (MV-PCI) or culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (CO-PCI) should be the treatment of choice in patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). Aims: To evaluate clinical characteristics and outcomes in these patients undergoing MV-PCI or CO-PCI at the index procedure. Methods: Data were retrieved from the nationwide Netherlands Heart Registration. All NSTE-ACS patients with MVD undergoing PCI between 1 January 2017 and 1 October 2019 were grouped into a MV-PCI or CO-PCI group. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at long-term follow-up (median 756 days (593–996)). Secondary endpoints were reinterventions, urgent CABG, myocardial infarction (MI) < 30 days, target vessel revascularisation (TVR) and mortality at 1 year. Propensity score matching analyses were performed. Results: In total, 10,507 NSTE-ACS patients with MVD were included into the MV-PCI (N = 4235) and CO-PCI group (N = 6272). Analysing crude data, mortality rates at long-term follow-up (10.7% vs. 10.2%; p = 0.383), mortality at 1 year (6.0% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.412) and MI <30 days (0.8% vs. 0.9%; p = 0.513) were similar between both groups. Reinterventions (11.1% vs. 20.0%; p < 0.001), urgent CABG (0.1% vs. 0.4%; p = 0.001) and TVR (5.2% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.003) occurred less often in the MV-PCI group. Survival analysis after multiple imputation and propensity score matching showed similar mortality rates at long-term follow-up (log-rank p = 0.289), but a significant reduction for reinterventions in the MV-PCI group (log-rank p < 0.001). Conclusion: NSTE-ACS patients with MVD undergoing MV-PCI have similar mortality rates at long-term follow-up compared to CO-PCI. However, improved event-free survival in terms of fewer coronary reinterventions was observed.

Multivessel vs. culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention strategy in older adults with acute myocardial infarction

BackgroundThe optima revascularization strategy for senior patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the context of multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) remains unclear. We aimed to compare a strategy of culprit-vessel (CV) vs. multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) in older adults (≥75 years) with AMI. MethodsWe analyzed four randomized controlled trials designed to include older adults with AMI. The primary endpoint was all-cause death. The secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke and major bleeding (Net Adverse Clinical Events, NACE). A non-parsimonious propensity score and nearest-neighbor matching was performed to account for bias. ResultsA total of 1,334 trial participants were included; of them, 770 (57.7%) underwent CV-PCI and 564 (42.3%) a MV-PCI strategy. After a median follow-up of 365 days, patients treated with MV-PCI experienced a lower rate of death (6.0% vs. 9.9%; p = 0.01) and of NACE (11.2% vs. 15.5%; p = 0.016). After multivariable analysis, MV-PCI was independently associated with a lower hazard of death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42–0.96; p = 0.03) and NACE (NACE 0.72[0.53–0.98]; p = 0.04). These results were confirmed in a matched propensity analysis, were consistent throughout the spectrum of older age and when analyzed by subgroups and when immortal-time bias was considered. ConclusionsIn the setting of older adults with MVCAD who were managed invasively for AMI, a MV-PCI strategy to pursue complete revascularization was associated with better survival and lower risk of NACE compared to a CV-PCI. Adequately sized RCTs are required to confirm these findings.

Staged revascularization vs. culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel disease in elderly patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Backgroundand objectiveStudies have highlighted the significant role of staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for a multivessel disease (MVD) among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the relative benefit of staged vs. culprit-only PCI for MVD in elderly patients with STEMI remains undetermined. Thus, the present study compared the clinical outcomes of staged and culprit-only PCI in this cohort.MethodsFrom January 2014 to September 2019, 617 patients aged ≥65 years with STEMI and MVD who underwent primary PCI of the culprit vessels within 12 h of symptom onset were enrolled. They were then categorized into the staged and culprit-only PCI groups according to intervention strategy. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to adjust for confounding factors between groups. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization.ResultsDuring a mean follow-up of 56 months, 209 patients experienced MACCE and 119 died. Staged revascularization was associated with a lower risk of MACCE, all-cause death, and cardiac death than culprit-only PCI in both overall patients and the PSM cohorts. In contrast, there was no significant difference in stroke or ischemia-driven revascularization. Moreover, on multivariate Cox regression analysis, staged PCI was a significant predictor of a lower incidence of MACCE and all-cause death.ConclusionIn elderly patients with STEMI and MVD, staged PCI is superior to culprit-only PCI.

Impact of percutaneous coronary intervention on chronic total occlusion in the non-infarct-related artery in patients with STEMI: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives We sought to compare the clinical outcomes between culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus multivessel PCI (MV-PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) accompanied by chronic total occlusion (CTO) in the non-infarct-related artery(non-IRA). Design Studies that compared culprit-only PCI versus MV-PCI in patients with STEMI accompanied by CTO in the non-IRA were included. Random odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Results Eight studies with 2,259 patients were included. The results suggested that in patients with STEMI accompanied by CTO in the non-IRA, culprit-only PCI was associated with higher risks of all-cause mortality (OR: 2.89; 95% CI: 2.09–4.00; I 2 = 0.0%), cardiac death (OR: 3.12; 95% CI: 2.05–4.75; I 2 = 16.8%), stroke (OR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.04–7.53; I 2 = 0.0%), major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.39–3.06; I 2 = 54.0%), and heart failure (OR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.22–3.24; I 2 = 0.0%) compared with staged MV-PCI, which were mainly derived from retrospective studies. No differences were observed in myocardial infarction or revascularization. Pooled multivariable adjusted results consistently indicated that staged MV-PCI was superior to culprit-only PCI. Conclusions For patients with STEMI accompanied by CTO in the non-IRA, staged MV-PCI may be better compared with culprit-only PCI due to potential reduced risks of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, stroke, MACE, and heart failure. Meanwhile, further randomized trials are warranted to confirm or refute our findings.

The optimal percutaneous coronary intervention strategy for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: a pairwise and network meta-analysis.

Objective:To investigate the optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease.Methods:Trials that randomized patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease to immediate multivessel PCI, staged multivessel PCI, or culprit-only PCI and prospective observational studies that investigated all-cause death were included. Random effect risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.Results:A total of 13 randomized trials with 7627 patients and 21 prospective observational studies with 60311 patients were included. In the pairwise and network meta-analysis based on randomized trials, immediate or staged multivessel PCI was associated with a lower risk of long-term major adverse cardiac events (MACE; RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.74) than culprit-only PCI, which was mainly due to lower risks of myocardial infarction (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.88) and revascularization (RR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.51), without any significant difference in all-cause death (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.04; I2 = 0.0%). However, short-term outcomes were deficient in randomized trials. The results from real-world prospective observational studies suggested that staged multivessel PCI reduced long-term all-cause death (RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.71; I2 = 15.6%), whereas immediate multivessel PCI increased short-term all-cause death (RR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.22 to 2.05; I2 = 43.8%) relative to culprit-only PCI.Conclusion:For patients in randomized trials, multivessel PCI in an immediate or staged procedure was preferred due to improvements in long-term outcomes. As a supplement, the results in real-world patients derived from prospective observational studies suggested that staged multivessel PCI was superior to immediate multivessel PCI. Therefore, staged multivessel PCI may be the optimal PCI strategy for patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease.

Revascularization Strategies in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: Is FFR-Guided Strategy Still Valuable?

Several studies have shown the benefit of complete revascularization (CR) over culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD). Nevertheless, optimal strategy to select targets for non-culprit PCI has not been clarified. In this paper, we critically discuss and compare the safety and efficacy of different strategies for CR in patients with STEMI and MVD using a Bayesian network meta-analysis including all previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In Bayesian network meta-analysis of 13 RCTs, culprit-only PCI was associated with higher risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), compared with angiography-guided or fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided CR strategies. However, there was no significant difference between angiography-guided and FFR-guided CR strategies in the risk of MACE and its individual components including all-cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and revascularization. These evidence support that both angiography-guided and FFR-guided complete revascularization strategies would be reasonable treatment option in patients with STEMI and MVD. If the non-culprit lesion is severe on visual assessment, angiography-guided PCI can be considered. If the non-culprit lesion is intermediate in severity or unclear based on visual assessment, FFR-guided strategy can be used as a reliable and objective tool, providing similar benefits with less stents compared with an angiography-guided strategy. Further RCT is needed to evaluate direct comparison between angiography-guided and FFR-guided CR strategies in patients with STEMI and MVD. Ongoing FRAME-AMI trial (NCT02715518) will provide more evidence regarding this issue.

86 STEMI and multivessel disease: medical therapy amplifies the benefit of complete myocardial revascularization

Abstract Aims Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multivessel disease (MVD) may be treated with different revascularization strategies. However, the potential predictors of outcomes on top of different revascularization strategies are poorly studied. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of two different revascularization strategies and the potential impact of medical therapy. Methods and results Using a propensity score approach, the impact of two treatment strategies was analysed—staged non-culprit revascularization group vs. culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) group—on a composite outcome of cardiovascular death (CVD), myocardial infarction, and repeated revascularization. Moreover, models were further adjusted for medication at discharge. Among 1385 STEMI patients treated with primary PCI, a subgroup of 433 with MVD was analysed. At the median follow-up of 41 (IQR, 21–65) months, after propensity-score adjustment, the multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis showed that the staged non-culprit revascularization group was associated with a lower composite endpoint (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24–0.82; P = 0.01), lower CVD (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.14–0.82; P = 0.02), and lower all-cause death (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24–0.86; P = 0.02). Use of renin–angiotensin inhibitors was associated with lower CVD (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27–0.95; P = 0.03), and both renin–angiotensin inhibitors (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32–0.86; P = 0.01) and beta blockers (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.29–0.79; P = 0.01) were associated with lower all-cause death. Conclusions In a real-word STEMI population with multivessel disease, staged non-culprit revascularization was associated with lower cardiovascular mortality compared with a culprit-only PCI strategy. However, both revascularization and medical therapy played a role in the improvement of mortality outcomes. Medical therapy amplified the benefit of myocardial revascularization.

Outcomes of Different Reperfusion Strategies of Multivessel Disease Undergoing Newer-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation in Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Chronic Kidney Disease.

Because available data are limited, we compared the 2-year clinical outcomes among different reperfusion strategies (culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (C-PCI), multivessel PCI (M-PCI), complete revascularization (CR) and incomplete revascularization (IR)) of multivessel disease (MVD) undergoing newer-generation drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). In this nonrandomized, multicenter, retrospective cohort study, a total of 1042 patients (C-PCI, n = 470; M-PCI, n = 572; CR, n = 432; IR, n = 140) were recruited from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR) and evaluated. The primary outcome was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events, defined as all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction and any repeat coronary revascularization. The secondary outcome was probable or definite stent thrombosis. During the 2-year follow-up period, the cumulative incidences of the primary (C-PCI vs. M-PCI, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.020; p = 0.924; CR vs. IR, aHR, 1.012; p = 0.967; C-PCI vs. CR, aHR, 1.042; p = 0.863; or C-PCI vs. IR, aHR, 1.060; p = 0.844) and secondary outcomes were statistically insignificant in the four comparison groups. In the contemporary newer-generation DES era, C-PCI may be a better reperfusion option for patients with NSTEMI with MVD and CKD rather than M-PCI, including CR and IR, with regard to the procedure time and the risk of contrast-induced nephropathy. However, further well-designed, large-scale randomized studies are warranted to confirm these results.

STEMI and Multivessel Disease: Medical Therapy Amplifies the Benefit of Complete Myocardial Revascularisation

Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multivessel disease (MVD) may be treated with different revascularisation strategies. However, the potential predictors of outcomes on top of different revascularisation strategies are poorly studied. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of two different revascularisation strategies and the potential impact of medical therapy. Using a propensity score approach, the impact of two treatment strategies was analysed -staged non-culprit revascularisation group vs culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) group -- on a composite outcome of cardiovascular death (CVD), myocardial infarction, and repeated revascularisation. Moreover, models were further adjusted for medication at discharge. Among 1,385 STEMI patients treated with primary PCI, a subgroup of 433 with MVD was analysed. At the median follow-up of 41 (IQR, 21-65) months, after propensity-score adjustment, the multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis showed that the staged non-culprit revascularisation group was associated with a lower composite endpoint (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.82; p=0.01), lower CVD (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.14-0.82; p=0.02), and lower all-cause death (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.86; p=0.02). Use of renin-angiotensin inhibitors was associated with lower CVD (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27-0.95; p=0.03), and both renin-angiotensin inhibitors (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.86; p=0.01) and beta blockers (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.29-0.79; p=0.01) were associated with lower all-cause death. In a real-word STEMI population with multivessel disease, staged non-culprit revascularisation was associated with lower cardiovascular mortality compared with a culprit-only PCI strategy. However, both revascularisation and medical therapy played a role in the improvement of mortality outcomes. Medical therapy amplified the benefit of myocardial revascularisation.

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.

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.

Does multivessel revascularization fit all patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ObjectiveWe sought to assess the relative merits of different revascularization strategies in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock or chronic total occlusion (CTO).BackgroundRecent randomized trials and meta-analysis have suggested that multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with better outcomes in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, however, patients complicated by cardiogenic shock or CTO were excluded.MethodsStudies that compared multivessel PCI (immediate or staged) with culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock or CTO were included. Random odd ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were conducted.ResultsSixteen studies with 8695 patients complicated by cardiogenic shock and eight studies with 2259 patients complicated by CTO were included. In patients complicated by cardiogenic shock, a strategy of CO-PCI was associated with lower risk for short-term renal failure (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61–0.93; I2 = 0.0%), with no significant difference in MACE, all-cause mortality, re-infarction, revascularization, cardiac death, heart failure, major bleeding, or stroke compared with an immediate MV-PCI strategy. In patients complicated by CTO, a strategy of CO-PCI was associated with higher risk for long-term MACE (OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.39–3.06; I2 = 54.0%), all-cause mortality (OR: 2.89; 95% CI: 2.09–4.00; I2 = 0.0%), cardiac death (OR: 3.12; 95% CI: 2.05–4.75; I2 = 16.8%), heart failure (OR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.22–3.24; I2 = 0.0%), and stroke (OR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.04–7.53; I2 = 0.0%) compared with a staged MV-PCI strategy, without any difference in re-infarction, revascularization, or major bleeding.ConclusionsFor patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock, an immediate multivessel PCI was not advocated due to a higher risk for short-term renal failure, whereas for patients complicated by CTO, a staged multivessel PCI was advocated due to reduced risks for long-term MACE, all-cause mortality, cardiac death, heart failure, and stroke.

Does multivessel revascularization fit all patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease? a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences Objective We sought to assess the relative merits of different revascularization strategies in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock or chronic total occlusion (CTO). Background Recent randomized trials and meta-analysis have suggested that multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with better outcomes in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, however, patients complicated by cardiogenic shock or CTO were excluded. Methods Studies that compared multivessel PCI (immediate or staged) with culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock or CTO were included. Random odd ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were conducted. Results Sixteen studies with 8695 patients complicated by cardiogenic shock and eight studies with 2259 patients complicated by CTO were included. In patients complicated by cardiogenic shock, a strategy of CO-PCI was associated with lower risk for short-term renal failure (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.93; I2 = 0.0%), with no significant difference in MACE, all-cause mortality, re-infarction, revascularization, cardiac death, heart failure, major bleeding, or stroke compared with an immediate MV-PCI strategy. In patients complicated by CTO, a strategy of CO-PCI was associated with higher risk for long-term MACE (OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.39 to 3.06; I2 = 54.0%), all-cause mortality (OR: 2.89; 95% CI: 2.09 to 4.00; I2 = 0.0%), cardiac death (OR: 3.12; 95% CI: 2.05 to 4.75; I2 = 16.8%), heart failure (OR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.22 to 3.24; I2 = 0.0%), and stroke (OR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.04 to 7.53; I2 = 0.0%) compared with a staged MV-PCI strategy, without any difference in re-infarction, revascularization, or major bleeding. Conclusions For patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock, an immediate multivessel PCI was not advocated due to higher risk for short-term renal failure, whereas for patients complicated by CTO, a staged multivessel PCI was advocated due to reduced risks for MACE, all-cause mortality, cardiac death, heart failure, and stroke.

Complete versus culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis

Abstract Background The clinical benefit of complete or culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) still remains controversial. Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of complete or culprit-only PCI in patients with unstable angina and/or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Methods PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were queried to conduct a meta-analysis. The same terms or relevant studies were also queried on the website of the U.S. National Institute of Health and relevant reviews. The primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE: the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularisation) during follow-up period, and the secondary endpoints were the incidences of each component of MACE. When multiple follow-up results were reported in the same study, the latest results were abstracted. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model. Results Nine studies (60345 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The risk of all-cause mortality (odds ratio (OR): 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64–0.98, p=0.03) or coronary revascularisation (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.50–1.00, p=0.05) were lower in the complete PCI group than in the culprit-only PCI group, whereas the risk of MACE (OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.65–1.49, p=0.94) or myocardial infarction (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.54–1.08, p=0.13) was similar between the 2 groups. Conclusions In this meta-analysis, complete PCI is associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality or coronary revascularisation, and a similar risk of MACE or myocardial infarction compared with culprit-only PCI in patients with NSTE-ACS. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Complete revascularization for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction after the COMPLETE trial: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background The recently published COMPLETE trial has demonstrated that patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD), who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of both culprit and non-culprit (vs. culprit-only) lesion had a reduced risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE: cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization), but not of cardiovascular or total mortality. Aim To assess the efficacy of complete revascularization for cardiovascular or total mortality reduction by meta-analysis of all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including the COMPLETE trial. Methods PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov databases search identified 10 RCTs of 7033 patients with STEMI and MVD which compared complete (n=3420) vs. only culprit lesion (n=3613) PCI for a median 28.7 months follow-up. Random effect risk ratios were used for efficacy and safety outcomes. Results Complete revascularization reduced the risk of MACE (10.4% vs. 16.6%; RR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.74, p&amp;lt;0.0001), CV mortality (2.87% vs. 3.72%; RR=0.73, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.95, p=0.02), reinfarction (5.1% vs. 7.1%; RR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.86, p=0.002), urgent revascularization (7.92% vs. 17.4%; RR=0.47, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.73, p&amp;lt;0.001), and CV hospitalization (8.68% vs. 11.4%; RR=0.65, 95% CI: 0.44to 0.96, p=0.03) compared with culprit only revascularization. All-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding events, or contrast induced nephropathy were not affected by the revascularization strategy. Conclusion The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that in patients with STEMI and MVD, complete revascularization is superior to culprit-only PCI in reducing the risk of MACE outcomes, including cardiovascular mortality, without increasing the risk of adverse safety outcomes. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

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

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

Benefit of a staged in-hospital revascularization strategy in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: Analyses by risk stratification.

The proper timing and indication of revascularization for a non-culprit artery in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD) without cardiogenic shock remains controversial. This multicenter study included patients with STEMI and MVD without cardiogenic shock. Data were analyzed at 3 years according to the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy: immediate multivessel revascularization (MVR) (n=351), stepwise MVR (n=510), and culprit-only PCI (n=1,142). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The stepwise MVR group had a lower risk of all-cause death. The results were consistent after multivariate regression, propensity-score matching, inverse probability weighting, and Bayesian proportional hazards modeling. In subgroup analyses stratified by the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score, stepwise MVR also lowered the risk of all-cause death compared to culprit-only PCI and immediate MVR in high risk patients but not in patients at low to intermediate risk. In patients with STEMI and MVD without cardiogenic shock, in-hospital stepwise MVR was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death than culprit-only PCI or immediate MVR, particularly in the high-risk subgroup.