Complete versus culprit-only coronary revascularization in patients with myocardial infarction and multivessel
Alfredo M Rodriguez-Granillo1,2, Walter Masson3, Martin Lobo4
1Centro de Estudios en Cardiología Intervencionista (CECI), Buenos Aires, Argentina - Mrodriguezgranillo@gmail.com.
Insights
Complete revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multiple vessel disease (MVD) reduces non-fatal reinfarction and repeat revascularization. This strategy, using percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), showed no difference in overall mortality compared to culprit-lesion-only PCI.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Medicine
- Interventional Cardiology
- Clinical Trials
Background:
- Current guidelines recommend complete revascularization (CR) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multiple vessel disease (MVD).
- The FULL REVASC trial did not demonstrate a benefit of CR over culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at 4.8 years.
- An updated meta-analysis is needed to clarify the role of CR in reducing hard clinical endpoints.
Purpose of the Study:
- To determine if complete revascularization (CR) is associated with decreased mortality and hard clinical endpoints compared to culprit-lesion-only PCI in STEMI patients with MVD.
- To update existing meta-analyses with recent randomized clinical trial (RCT) data.
- To evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of different revascularization strategies.
Main Methods:
- Systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases (1990-2024).
- Inclusion of RCTs comparing CR versus culprit-lesion-only PCI with follow-up ≥12 months, predominantly using drug-eluting stents.
- Meta-analysis of cardiovascular endpoints, calculating odds ratios (ORs) for mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and revascularization.
Main Results:
- Eight RCTs with 9515 patients were included, with follow-up ranging from 12 months to 4.8 years.
- Complete revascularization (CR) was associated with a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (MI) (OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.05-1.81) and ischemia-guided revascularization (OR: 2.81; 95% CI: 1.86-4.26) compared to culprit-lesion-only PCI.
- No significant difference in overall mortality was observed between CR and culprit-lesion-only PCI (OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.98-1.36).
Conclusions:
- In STEMI patients with MVD (without cardiogenic shock), complete revascularization (CR) via PCI significantly reduces the risk of non-fatal MI and ischemic-driven revascularization.
- CR did not demonstrate a significant difference in overall mortality compared to culprit-lesion-only PCI.
- These findings provide updated evidence on the benefits of CR in specific patient populations.
Introduction:
Recently, the FFR-Guidance for Complete Nonculprit Revascularization (FULL REVASC) trial in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multiple vessel disease (MVD) did not show differences in the composite endpoint of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization than culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at 4.8 years, although complete revascularization is a recommendation IA in current guidelines. We want to determine through an updated meta-analysis whether complete revascularization is associated with decreased mortality and hard clinical endpoints compared to culprit lesion only PCI.
Evidence Acquisition:
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from January 1990 to April 2024 using the terms "percutaneous coronary intervention" combined with "non culprit lesions" or "culprit lesion" or "complete revascularization" or "incomplete revascularization." Additionally, a "snowball search" was conducted. Only randomized clinical trials (RCT) reporting mortality, re-infarction or new revascularization after at least 12 months and using predominantly drug eluting stents were included. The summary effect of different revascularization strategies on cardiovascular endpoints was estimated and measures of effect size were expressed as odds ratios (ORs).
Evidence Synthesis:
Eight RCT involving 9515 patients were included, with a follow-up range between 12 months and 4.8 years. Main findings show that culprit lesion revascularization was associated with an increased risk of MI (OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.81, I2 42%) and ischemia-guided revascularization (OR: 2.81; 95% CI: 1.86 to 4.26, I2 80%) compared to complete revascularization, without differences in overall mortality (OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.36, I2 2%).
Conclusions:
In patients with STEMI and MVD without cardiogenic shock, our metanalysis showed that complete revascularization with PCI significantly reduced the risk of non-fatal myocardial reinfarction and ischemic-driven revascularization compared to culprit vessel-only revascularization, without differences in overall mortality.
Related Concept Videos
Coronary Artery Disease IV: Preventive Measures
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Angina IV: Management
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care


