Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 17, 2025

Optimized Management of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke
Published on: January 18, 2018
Optimal revascularization strategy in patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease: insights from a
Andrea Milzi1,2, Stefano Benenati3, Antonio Landi4,5
1Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), Via Tesserete 48, CH-6900, Lugano, Switzerland. andrea.milzi@eoc.ch.
Insights
For acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with multivessel disease (MVD), complete revascularization guided by either angiography or physiology significantly reduces major adverse cardiac events compared to culprit-only treatment. Physiology-guided revascularization shows the greatest benefit for reducing mortality.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Clinical Trials
Background:
- Coronary multivessel disease (MVD) is present in about 50% of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients.
- The optimal strategy for revascularizing non-culprit lesions in ACS with MVD remains unclear.
- Current approaches include culprit-only revascularization, angiography-guided complete revascularization, and physiology-guided complete revascularization.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the effectiveness of culprit-only, angiography-guided complete, and physiology-guided complete revascularization strategies.
- To evaluate outcomes in patients with ACS and MVD undergoing different revascularization approaches.
Main Methods:
- A systematic search of randomized controlled trials was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science.
- Included studies focused on ACS patients with MVD comparing the three revascularization strategies.
- Data from 14 trials involving 11,871 participants were analyzed.
Main Results:
- Complete revascularization, both angiography- and physiology-guided, significantly reduced major adverse cardiac events (MACE) compared to culprit-only intervention.
- Angiography-guided complete revascularization showed a lower MACE rate (IRR 0.60) and physiology-guided complete revascularization showed a similar rate (IRR 0.65).
- Physiology-guided revascularization demonstrated the highest estimated benefit for reducing all-cause and cardiovascular death.
Conclusions:
- Both angiography-guided and physiology-guided complete revascularization are superior to culprit-only revascularization in reducing MACE for ACS patients with MVD.
- Physiology-guided complete revascularization appears to offer the greatest survival benefit.
- Further research may refine optimal selection criteria for non-culprit lesion revascularization.
Abstract:
Coronary multivessel disease (MVD) affects approximately 50% of the patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The optimal revascularization strategy after culprit lesion treatment, including the optimal method to select non-culprit lesions amenable to revascularization, remains unsettled. This study sought to compare culprit-only revascularization, angiography-guided complete revascularization, and physiology-guided complete revascularization in multivessel disease (MVD) patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We searched PUBMED and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials investigating outcomes following culprit-only revascularization, angiography-guided complete revascularization or physiology-guided complete revascularization in patients with ACS and MVD. We identified 14 randomized studies and 11,871 participants with ACS and MVD, of whom 5090 underwent culprit-only intervention, 3641 angiography-guided complete revascularization, 3140 physiology-guided complete revascularization). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were lower in both angiography- (IRR 0.60, 95%-CI 0.46-0.79) or physiology-guided (IRR 0.65, 95%-CI 0.50-0.85) complete revascularization compared with culprit-only revascularization. P-score for treatment ranking was higher for angiography- (0.834) than physiology-guidance (0.666). The estimated effects for all-cause and cardiovascular death vs. culprit-only revascularization were 0.89 (95%-CI 0.61-1.30) and 0.82 (95%-CI 0.48-1.40) for angiography-guidance, and 0.78 (95%-CI 0.55-1.11) and 0.64 (95%-CI 0.40-1.01) for physiology-guidance, respectively. For both all-cause death and cardiovascular death, the highest benefit was estimated for physiology-guidance (P-scores respectively 0.821 and 0.870). In patients with ACS and MVD, both angiography- and physiology-guided complete revascularization are superior to culprit-only revascularization with respect to MACE reduction. Angiography-guidance and physiology-guidance were comparable for future events prevention.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome V: Nursing Management
Atherosclerosis III: Management
Acute Coronary Syndrome II: Pathophysiology and Clinical Manifestations

