ABSTRACT
Several recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated better outcomes with multivessel complete revascularization (CR) than with infarct-related artery-only revascularization (IRA-OR) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. It is unclear whether CR should be performed during the index procedure (IP) at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or as a staged procedure (SP). Therefore, we performed a pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model and network meta-analysis using mixed-treatment comparison models to compare the efficacies of 3 revascularization strategies (IRA-OR, CR-IP, and CR-SP). Scientific databases and websites were searched to find RCTs. Data from 9 RCTs involving 2,176 patients were included. In mixed-comparison models, CR-IP decreased the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs; odds ratio [OR] 0.36, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.54), recurrent myocardial infarction (MI; OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.91), revascularization (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.38), and cardiovascular (CV) mortality (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.87). However, only the rates of MACEs, MI, and CV mortality were lower with CR-SP than with IRA-OR. Similarly, in direct-comparison meta-analysis, the risk of MI was 66% lower with CR-IP than with IRA-OR, but this advantage was not seen with CR-SP. There were no differences in all-cause mortality between the 3 revascularization strategies. In conclusion, this meta-analysis shows that in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease, CR either during primary PCI or as an SP results in lower occurrences of MACE, revascularization, and CV mortality than IRA-OR. CR performed during primary PCI also results in lower rates of recurrent MI and seems the most efficacious revascularization strategy of the 3.
