Preventive versus Culprit-Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients with Multivessel Disease: A Meta-Analysis

BackgroundAlthough previous studies have suggested clinical benefits of complete revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, it is still controversial whether preventive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) leads to better clinical outcomes in the clinical setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). MethodsRelevant studies through September 2014 were searched and identified in the electronic databases. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up. Secondary endpoints included myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). ResultsFrom 836 initial citations, 7 randomized trials, and 23 observational studies with 44,256 patients (8,087 preventive and 36,169 culprit-only) were included in this study. Preventive PCI was associated with a significant reduction in repeat revascularization (odds ratios [OR]: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.51-0.99) with no differences in all-cause mortality (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.76-1.29) or MI (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.62-1.87) as compared with culprit-only PCI. Comparison of preventive PCI to the culprit-only PCI group revealed OR for MACE of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.57-1.12). Stratified analysis according to revascularization strategy demonstrated a significant survival benefit of culprit-only PCI over multivessel PCI during the index procedure and a significantly lower incidence of all-cause mortality with staged PCI as compared with culprit-only or multivessel PCI during the index procedure. ConclusionsPreventive PCI strategy appears to be effective in reducing the risk of repeat revascularization without significant benefits for mortality or MI when compared with culprit-only revascularization in STEMI patients with multivessel disease. (J Interven Cardiol 2015;28:1-13)