Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization In Patients Presenting With St-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis Of Randomized Control Trials

Background: In patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit vessel is the preferred treatment option. For patients with multivessel disease, the benefit of revascularization of the non-culprit artery is not well known. Thismeta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of complete versus culprit vessel only revascularization.Methods: Randomized control trials (RCT) that compared head-to-head complete versus culprit-vessel only revascularization in STEMI patients and reported main outcomes of interest such as mortality, myocardial infarction, and revascularization, were included in this meta-analysis.Results: Wefound ten RCTs satisfying our inclusion criteria. Datawas extracted and used to estimate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous variables. Our study included 7030 patients (3426 complete revascularization, and 3604 culprit-only revascularization). Complete revascularization (CR) (both immediate and staged) significantly reduced the risk of MACE compared with culprit only (CO) revascularization (10.7% vs 20.1%, RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.64; P < 0.0001), reinfarction (5.0% vs 6.9%, RR 0.69; 95 CI 0.51 to 0.93; P < 0.01), and revascularization (4.2% vs 12.7%, RR 0.37; 95 CI 0.26 to 0.54; P < 0.0001). Our analysis did not find any significant difference in all-cause mortality between CR and CO (4.6% vs 5.0%, RR 0.89; 95 CI 0.72 to 0.1.10; P = 0.27).Conclusion: In conclusion, complete revascularization was associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events, revascularization and reinfarction. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.