Culprit vessel only vs immediate complete revascularization in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial...

Although multivessel coronary artery disease has been associated with poor health outcomes in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the optimal approach to revascularization remains uncertain. The objective of this review was to determine the benefits and harms of culprit vessel only vs immediate complete percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute STEMI. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Teams of 2 reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened titles and abstracts, completed full-text reviews, and abstracted data. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effect models for nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and adverse events, and used the GRADE approach to rate confidence in estimates of effect. Of 341 patients randomized to complete revascularization and followed to study conclusion, 31 experienced revascularization, as did 80 of 324 randomized to culprit vessel only revascularization (RR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.24-0.53). Ten patients in the complete revascularization group and 28 patients in the culprit vessel only revascularization group experienced nonfatal MI (RR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.17-0.72). All-cause mortality and cardiac deaths did not differ between groups (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.40-1.21 for all-cause mortality; RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.22-1.04 for cardiac deaths). Pooled data from 3 RCTs suggest that immediate complete revascularization probably reduces revascularization in patients with acute STEMI; although results suggest possible benefits on MI and death, confidence in estimates is low.