Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 30, 2026

Fully Endoscopic Mitral Valve Repair with Percutaneous Cannulation of Groin Vessels
Published on: May 26, 2023
Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization for Patients With Multi-Vessel Disease Undergoing Primary Percutaneous
Islam Y Elgendy1, Xuerong Wen1, Ahmed Mahmoud1
1Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Insights
Complete revascularization during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and urgent revascularization. This strategy is safe, showing no increased risk of bleeding or kidney issues in STEMI patients with multi-vessel disease.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Clinical Trials
Background:
- Conflicting evidence exists regarding optimal revascularization strategy during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
- Optimal management of multi-vessel disease in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains debated.
Purpose of the Study:
- To determine if complete revascularization of significant coronary lesions during primary PCI improves patient outcomes compared to culprit-only revascularization.
- To update meta-analysis findings on revascularization strategies in STEMI patients.
Main Methods:
- Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing complete versus culprit-only revascularization in STEMI patients with multi-vessel disease.
- Utilized random effects models to calculate summary risk ratios (RR) for key outcomes.
- Primary outcome assessed was the composite of mortality or myocardial infarction (MI).
Main Results:
- Seven trials including 1,939 patients were analyzed.
- Complete revascularization showed a non-significant trend towards reduced mortality or MI (RR 0.69, P=0.14).
- Significant reduction in major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR 0.61, P<0.001) and urgent revascularization (RR 0.46, P<0.001) observed with complete revascularization.
- No significant difference in major bleeding or contrast-induced nephropathy between strategies.
Conclusions:
- Complete revascularization of all significant coronary lesions during primary PCI reduces MACE, primarily by decreasing urgent revascularization.
- This approach is safe and does not increase the risk of major bleeding or contrast-induced nephropathy.
- Complete revascularization is a favorable strategy for STEMI patients with multi-vessel disease.
Objectives:
To perform an updated meta-analysis to determine whether complete revascularization of significant coronary lesions at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) would be associated with better outcomes compared with culprit-only revascularization.
Background:
Individual trials have demonstrated conflicting evidence regarding the optimum revascularization strategy at the time of primary PCI.
Methods:
Clinical trials that randomized ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multi-vessel disease to a complete versus culprit-only revascularization strategy were included. Random effects summary risk ratios (RR) were constructed using a DerSimonian-Laird model. The primary outcome of interest was mortality or myocardial infarction (MI).
Results:
A total of seven trials with 1,939 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with culprit-only revascularization, complete revascularization was associated with a non-significant reduction in the risk of mortality or MI (RR 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-1.12, P = 0.14). Complete revascularization was associated with a reduced risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45-0.81, P < 0.001), due to a significant reduction in urgent revascularization (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29-0.70, P < 0.001). The risk of major bleeding and contrast-induced nephropathy was similar with both approaches (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.41-1.71, P = 0.62, and RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.42-2.12, P = 0.82).
Conclusions:
Complete revascularization of all significant coronary lesions at the time of primary PCI was associated with a reduction in the risk of MACE due to reduction in the risk of urgent revascularization. This approach appears to be safe, with no excess major bleeding, or contrast-induced nephropathy. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Cardiac Catheterization I: Pre-Procedure Overview
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies

