Back to Search Start Over

Meta-Analysis Comparing Complete Versus Infarct-Related Artery Revascularization in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Coronary Disease.

Authors :
Osman M
Khan SU
Farjo PD
Chima N
Kheiri B
Zahr F
Alkhouli M
Source :
The American journal of cardiology [Am J Cardiol] 2020 Feb 15; Vol. 125 (4), pp. 513-520. Date of Electronic Publication: 2019 Nov 19.
Publication Year :
2020

Abstract

A strategy of complete revascularization (CR) versus infarct-related artery revascularization (IRA) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) continues to be a subject of debate. We performed an updated meta-analysis to compare the 2 strategies. Outcomes of interest included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, stroke, repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction, and contrast-induced nephropathy. Ten randomized trials including 7,423 patients (CR = 3,574 and IRA = 3,849), with a follow-up of 2.0 ± 0.8 years were included. There was a significant reduction in MACE with CR versus IRA (10.7% vs 18.6%, relative risk [RR] 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51 to 0.81, p = 0.002, I <superscript>2</superscript>  = 66%), with higher risk reduction with immediate versus stages revascularization (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.5 vs RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.89, P-interaction = 0.002). Complete revascularization was associated with lower rates of repeat revascularization (4.0% vs 11.7%, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.70, p <0.0001, I <superscript>2</superscript>  = 81%), and a nonsignificant trend toward lower cardiovascular mortality (2.8% vs 3.7%, RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.03, p = 0.08, I <superscript>2</superscript>  = 0%). However, there was no difference between the 2 strategies in all-cause mortality (4.6% vs 4.8%, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.12, p = 0.36, I <superscript>2</superscript>  = 0%), myocardial infarction (5.2% vs 6.5%, RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.08, p = 0.08, I <superscript>2</superscript>  = 30%), stroke (1.5% vs 1.2%, RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.29, p = 0.33, I <superscript>2</superscript>  = 14%), or contrast-induced nephropathy (1.6% vs 1.2%, RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15, p = 0.78, I <superscript>2</superscript>  = 0%). In conclusion, CR in patients with STEMI is associated with significant reduction in MACE compared with IRA. This reduction is derived mainly by the low rates of repeat revascularization in the CR group.<br /> (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1879-1913
Volume :
125
Issue :
4
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
The American journal of cardiology
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
31812228
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.11.017