Abstract / Summary
Complete revascularization improves outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD); however, the optimal timing of noninfarct-related artery intervention during the index procedure, immediate revascularization (IR) versus a staged approach (SR), remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing SR and IR in patients with STEMI and MVD. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events. Secondary outcomes included all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, stroke, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, and heart failure hospitalization. Random-effects models with Hartung-Knapp adjustment were used. Trial sequential analysis assessed evidence conclusiveness, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Eight randomized trials, including 5077 patients (2556 SR; 2521 IR), were analyzed. No significant differences were observed between SR and IR for major adverse cardiovascular events [odds ratios (ORs), 1.07; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.76-1.49], recurrent myocardial infarction (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.80-2.14), cardiovascular mortality (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51-1.13), or all-cause mortality (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.54-1.06). Rates of stent thrombosis, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, and heart failure hospitalization were also comparable. Trial sequential analysis indicated insufficient information size to draw definitive conclusions, and the certainty of evidence ranged from very low to low. In patients with STEMI and MVD, staged and immediate complete revascularization provide comparable ischemic, safety, and mortality outcomes. Current evidence supports clinical equipoise, and revascularization timing should be individualized pending results from adequately powered trials.
Primary Source
Critical pathways in cardiology
Ask Prognia AI
Have questions about this meta-analysis?
Prognia AI can search this source alongside 35M+ PubMed papers and current ESC, AHA, NICE, and ADA guidelines to give you a fully cited clinical answer.
Related Clinical Guidelines
Related Blog Posts
ESC 2023 Heart Failure Guidelines: What Every Cardiologist Needs to Know
The 2023 focused update to the ESC Heart Failure Guidelines introduced key changes to SGLT2 inhibitor recommendations, HFmrEF management, and device therapy thresholds. Here is a practical summary.
CHADS₂-VASc in Practice: When to Start Anticoagulation in AF
A practical walkthrough of the CHADS₂-VASc scoring system, its ESC guideline thresholds, and how to use it alongside HAS-BLED to counsel patients with atrial fibrillation.