Title of article
Meta-Analysis of Multivessel Coronary Artery Revascularization Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease
Author/Authors
Bangalore، نويسنده , , Sripal and Kumar، نويسنده , , Sunil and Poddar، نويسنده , , Kanhaiya L. and Ramasamy، نويسنده , , Sureshkumar and Rha، نويسنده , , Seung-Woon and Faxon، نويسنده , , David P.، نويسنده ,
Issue Information
روزنامه با شماره پیاپی سال 2011
Pages
11
From page
1300
To page
1310
Abstract
American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for management of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) recommend culprit artery-only revascularization (CULPRIT) based on safety concerns during noninfarct-related artery intervention. However, the data to support this safety concern are scant. Searches were performed in PubMed/EMBASE/CENTRAL for studies evaluating multivessel revascularization versus CULPRIT in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease (MVD). A multivessel revascularization strategy had to be performed at the time of CULPRIT or during the same hospitalization. Early (≤30-day) and long-term outcomes were evaluated. Among 19 studies (23 arms) that evaluated 61,764 subjects with STEMI and MVD, multivessel revascularization was performed in a minority of patients (16%). For early outcomes, there was no significant difference for outcomes of mortality, MI, stroke, and target vessel revascularization, with a 44% decrease in risk of repeat percutaneous coronary intervention and major adverse cardiovascular events (odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.81) with multivessel revascularization compared to CULPRIT. Similarly, for long-term outcomes (follow-up 2.0 ± 1.1 years), there was no difference for outcomes of MI, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis, with 33%, 43%, and 53% decreases in risk of mortality, repeat percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively, and major adverse cardiovascular events (odds ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.72) with multivessel revascularization compared to CULPRIT. In conclusion, in patients with STEMI and MVD, multivessel revascularization appears to be safe compared to culprit artery-only revascularization. These findings support the need for a large-scale randomized trial to evaluate revascularization strategies in patients with STEMI and MVD.
Journal title
American Journal of Cardiology
Serial Year
2011
Journal title
American Journal of Cardiology
Record number
1900757
Link To Document