The optimal timing for intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11341378 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and objectivesIn patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease (MVD), the optimal timing of staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear.Subjects and methodsThis study was a retrospective analysis of 753 STEMI patients with MVD who were treated by multivessel PCI in the Convergent Registry of Catholic and Chonnam University for Acute myocardial infarction (MI). Patients were divided into 3 groups according to the time from initial to staged PCI: group 1 (n=316, multivessel PCI performed during the index procedure), group 2 (n=360, staged PCI within 1 week), and group 3 (n=77, staged PCI after 1 week). The endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), including all-cause mortality, non-fatal MI, and repeat PCI during 3.4 years follow-up.ResultsThe incidence of composite MACEs was higher in group 3 than in group 1 (odds ratio [OR]: 1.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06 to 3.18, p=0.031). However, the risk of MACEs in groups 1 and 2 was comparable (OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.46, p=0.950). In multivariate logistic regression, independent predictors of 3-year MACEs were high Killip class (OR: 2.72, 95% CI: 1.38 to 5.37, p=0.004), left ventricular ejection fraction <45% (OR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.06 to 2.32, p=0.024), and group 3 (OR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.06 to 3.18, p=0.009).ConclusionDeferred staged PCI after one week index PCI was associated with the highest MACE, as compared to both simultaneous multivessel PCI and early staged PCI <1 week.
| S-EPMC5287185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the immediate, early, and delayed percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategies in non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients with high-risk.MethodsMedical records of patients treated at the Daping Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China between 2011 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Only patients with complete available information were included. All patients assigned into three groups based on the timing of PCI including immediate (< 2 h), early (2-24 h) and delayed (≥ 24 h) intervention. Multivariable Cox hazards regression and simpler nonlinear models were performed.ResultsA total of 657 patients were included in the study. The median follow-up length was 3.29 (interquartile range: 1.45-4.85) years. Early PCI strategy improved the major adverse cardiac event (MACE) outcome compared to the immediate or delayed PCI strategy. Early PCI, diabetes mellitus, and left main or/and left anterior descending or/and left circumflex stenosis or/and right coronary artery ≥ 99% were predictors for MACE outcome. The optimal timing range for PCI to reduce MACE risk is 3-14 h post-admission. For high-risk NSTEMI patients, early PCI reduced primary clinical outcomes compared to immediate or delayed PCI, and the optimal timing range was 3-14 h post-admission. Delayed PCI was superior for NSTEMI with chronic kidney injury.ConclusionsDelayed invasive strategy was helpful to reduce the incidence of MACE for high-risk NSTEMI with chronic kidney injury. An immediate PCI strategy might increase the rate of MACE.
| S-EPMC11411260 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe optimal revascularization strategy for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease is unclear. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis to determine the optimal revascularization strategy for treating these patients.MethodsSearches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, clinicaltrial.gov, and the reference lists of relevant papers were performed covering the period between the year 2000 and March 20, 2017. A pairwise analysis and a Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed to compare the effectiveness of early complete revascularization (CR) during the index hospitalization, delayed CR, and culprit only revascularization (COR). The primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which were defined as the composite of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, and all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoints were the rates of all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, and repeat revascularization. This study is registered at PROSPERO under registration number CRD42017059980.ResultsEleven randomized controlled trials including a total of 3,170 patients were identified. A pairwise meta-analysis showed that compared with COR, early CR was associated with significantly decreased risks of MACE (relative risk [RR] 0.47, 95% CI 0.39-0.56), MI (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.83), and repeat revascularization (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.27-0.46) but not of all-cause mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.52-1.16). These results were confirmed by trial sequential analysis. The network meta-analysis showed that early CR had the highest probability of being the first treatment option during MACE (89.2%), MI (83.3%), and repeat revascularization (80.4%).ConclusionEarly CR during the index hospitalization was markedly superior to COR with respect to reducing the risk of MACE, as CR significantly decreased the risks of MI and repeat revascularization compared with COR. However, further study is warranted to determine whether CR during the index hospitalization can improve survival in patients with concurrent ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. The optimal timing of CR remains inconclusive considering the small number of studies and patients included in the analysis comparing early and delayed CR.
| S-EPMC6112772 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This paper presents a case of acute myocardial infarction in a patient with a thrombotic occlusion of a diffusely diseased left anterior descending artery, who also had nonculprit severe lesions in the obtuse marginal and right coronary arteries. Considering the extent of the disease and the clinical presentation, a carefully planned multistaged hybrid approach involving drug-eluting balloons and stents was chosen as the optimal revascularization strategy for this patient.
| S-EPMC11911918 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease.MethodsTrials 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.ResultsA 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; I 2 = 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; I 2 = 15.6%), whereas immediate multivessel PCI increased short-term all-cause death (RR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.22 to 2.05; I 2 = 43.8%) relative to culprit-only PCI.ConclusionFor 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.
| S-EPMC8918769 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Primary PCI of infarct-related arteries is the preferred reperfusion strategy in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Up to 40 % of such patients demonstrate evidence of multivessel, non-infarct-related artery coronary disease. Previous non-randomised observational studies and their associated meta-analyses have suggested that in such cases only the culprit infarct-related artery (IRA) lesion should be treated. However, recent randomised controlled trials have demonstrated improved clinical outcomes with lower major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) rates when complete revascularisation is undertaken either at index primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) or during index admission. These trials suggest that current guidelines pertaining to treatment of non-infarct-related artery (N-IRA) lesions in STEMI patients with multivessel disease may need to be reconsidered depending on future trials. However, issues remain around timing of N-IRA intervention, the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular imaging to guide intervention in N-IRA lesions and the need to demonstrate reductions in hard clinical endpoints (death and MI) after complete revascularisation; these issues will need to be addressed through future trials. Clinicians must judge on the currently available data, whether it is still safer to leave important stenosis in N-IRA untreated.
| S-EPMC4523695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The relative benefit of immediate complete revascularization, staged complete revascularization, and culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of the 3 PCI strategies in this population. Methods: We followed a pre-specified protocol (PROSPERO number: CRD42020183801). A comprehensive search of the electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from inception through February 21, 2020 was conducted. Randomized trials evaluating the comparative efficacy and safety of at least 2 of the 3 PCI strategies were identified. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular mortality or myocardial infarction (MI) during the longest follow-up. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed with random-effects model. Results: Eleven trials including 6,942 patients were analyzed. Pairwise meta-analysis noted that immediate complete revascularization and staged complete revascularization were respectively associated with a 52 and 27% reduction in the risk of cardiovascular death or MI (relative risk [RR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-0.73, I2 = 0%; and RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.88, I2 = 0%, respectively), compared with culprit-only PCI. The risk of cardiovascular death or MI was not statistically different in staged and immediate complete revascularization groups (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.45-1.72, I2 = 0%). Network meta-analysis obtained almost similar results compared with pairwise meta-analysis, and immediate complete revascularization had a 77% probability of being the best strategy for reducing cardiovascular death or MI among the 3 PCI strategies. Conclusion: The current evidence suggests that both immediate and staged complete revascularization were associated with a reduction of cardiovascular death or MI compared with culprit-only PCI. Further trials are warranted to directly compare immediate vs. staged complete revascularization in this population. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, PROSPERO [CRD42020183801].
| S-EPMC8767564 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe best strategy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease (MVD), who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the acute phase, is not well established.ObjectivesOur goal was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (culprit PCI) with multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) for treatment of patients with STEMI and MVD.MethodsPubmed, Elsevier, Embase, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were systematically searched for randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing culprit PCI and MV-PCI strategies during the index procedure. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.1 (Cochrane Center, Denmark).ResultsFour randomized and fourteen nonrandomized studies involving 39,390 patients were included. MV-PCI strategy is associated with an increased short-term mortality (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.77, p = 0.002), long-term mortality (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.74, p<0.001), and risk of renal dysfunction (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.97, p = 0.03) compared with culprit PCI strategy, while it reduced the incidence of revascularization (OR: 2.65, 95% CI: 1.80 to 3.90, p<0.001).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis supports current guidelines which indicate that the non-culprit vessel should not be treated during the index procedure.
| S-EPMC3961318 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4069192 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11307891 | biostudies-literature