Culprit Vessel-Only Versus Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Complicating ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Collaborative Meta-Analysis.

نویسندگان

  • Dhaval Kolte
  • Partha Sardar
  • Sahil Khera
  • Uwe Zeymer
  • Holger Thiele
  • Matthias Hochadel
  • Dragana Radovanovic
  • Paul Erne
  • Kristina Hambraeus
  • Stefan James
  • Bimmer E Claessen
  • Jose P S Henriques
  • Darren Mylotte
  • Philippe Garot
  • Wilbert S Aronow
  • Theophilus Owan
  • Diwakar Jain
  • Julio A Panza
  • William H Frishman
  • Gregg C Fonarow
  • Deepak L Bhatt
  • Herbert D Aronow
  • J Dawn Abbott
چکیده

BACKGROUND The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel disease presenting with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS Databases were searched from 1999 to October 2016. Studies comparing immediate/single-stage multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) versus culprit vessel-only PCI (CO-PCI) in patients with multivessel disease, ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock were included. Primary end point was short-term (in-hospital or 30 days) mortality. Secondary end points included long-term mortality, cardiovascular death, reinfarction, and repeat revascularization. Safety end points were in-hospital stroke, renal failure, and major bleeding. The meta-analysis included 11 nonrandomized studies and 5850 patients (1157 MV-PCI and 4693 CO-PCI). There was no significant difference in short-term mortality with MV-PCI versus CO-PCI (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-1.43; P=0.61). Similarly, there were no significant differences in long-term mortality (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.54-1.30; P=0.43), cardiovascular death (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.42-1.23; P=0.23), reinfarction (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.84-3.26; P=0.15), or repeat revascularization (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.76-1.69; P=0.54) between the 2 groups. There was a nonsignificant trend toward higher in-hospital stroke (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.98-2.72; P=0.06) and renal failure (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.98-1.72; P=0.06), with no difference in major bleeding (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.39-5.63; P=0.57) with MV-PCI when compared with CO-PCI. CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies suggests that in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, there may be no significant benefit with single-stage MV-PCI compared with CO-PCI. Given the limitations of observational data, randomized trials are needed to determine the role of MV-PCI in this setting.

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Outcomes in culprit only versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in ST elevation myocardial infarction during index procedure

Aims: Multivessel disease seen in 40 65% of STEMI patients is associated with higher mortality. ACC/AHA guidelines do not give clear indications regarding revascularization of non-infarct related arteries in the absence of cardiogenic shock while ESC/EACTS guidelines provide a class 2b recommendation for multivessel PCI in the primary intervention in select patients. This meta-analysis aims to ...

متن کامل

Multivessel Versus Culprit Vessel–Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the TRANSLATE‐ACS Observational Study

BACKGROUND Among patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) who have multivessel disease, it is unclear if multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves clinical and quality-of-life outcomes compared with culprit-only intervention. We sought to compare clinical and quality-of-life outcomes between multivessel and culprit-only PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS Among 6061 patients wi...

متن کامل

Culprit Vessel Only versus Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients Presenting with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease

BACKGROUND The best strategy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease (MVD), who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the acute phase, is not well established. OBJECTIVES Our goal was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (culprit PCI) with multivessel percutaneous co...

متن کامل

Comparison of in-Hospital Outcome after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Between Patients with Anterior Myocardial Infarction and Those With or Without Ramus Intermedius

Introduction: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is used for the treatment of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Anterior STEMI is associated with adverse outcomes, and it is possible that the presence of ramus intermedius (RI) would inversely affect the outcome. This research involved the evaluation of the influence of RI presence on clinical ou...

متن کامل

Comparison of clinical outcomes between culprit vessel only and multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel coronary diseases

BACKGROUND The clinical significance of complete revascularization for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients during admission is still debatable. METHODS A total of 1406 STEMI patients from the Korean Myocardial Infarction Registry with multivessel diseases without cardiogenic shock who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) were analyzed. We used pr...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

عنوان ژورنال:
  • Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions

دوره 10 11  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2017