Felix Voll, Constantin Kuna, Maria Scalamogna, Thorsten Kessler, Sebastian Kufner, Tobias Rheude, Hendrik B Sager, Erion Xhepa, Jens Wiebe, Michael Joner, Robert A Byrne, Heribert Schunkert, Gjin Ndrepepa, Barbara E Stähli, Adnan Kastrati, Salvatore Cassese
{"title":"STEMI 稳定期患者进行多血管血运重建的时机:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Felix Voll, Constantin Kuna, Maria Scalamogna, Thorsten Kessler, Sebastian Kufner, Tobias Rheude, Hendrik B Sager, Erion Xhepa, Jens Wiebe, Michael Joner, Robert A Byrne, Heribert Schunkert, Gjin Ndrepepa, Barbara E Stähli, Adnan Kastrati, Salvatore Cassese","doi":"10.1016/j.rec.2024.06.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and objectives: </strong>Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) is recommended in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) without cardiogenic shock. The present network meta-analysis investigated the optimal timing of MV-PCI in this context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We pooled the aggregated data from randomized trials investigating stable STEMI patients with multivessel CAD treated with a strategy of either MV-PCI or culprit vessel-only PCI. The primary outcome was all-cause death. The main secondary outcomes were cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 11 trials, a total of 10 507 patients were randomly assigned to MV-PCI (same sitting, n=1683; staged during the index hospitalization, n=3460; staged during a subsequent hospitalization within 45 days, n=3275) or to culprit vessel-only PCI (n=2089). The median follow-up was 18.6 months. In comparison with culprit vessel-only PCI, MV-PCI staged during the index hospitalization significantly reduced all-cause death (risk ratio, 0.73; 95%CI, 0.56-0.92; P=.008) and ranked as possibly the best treatment option for this outcome compared with all other strategies. In comparison with culprit vessel-only PCI, a MV-PCI reduced cardiovascular mortality without differences dependent on the timing of revascularization. MV-PCI within the index hospitalization, either in a single procedure or staged, significantly reduced myocardial infarction and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, with no significant difference between each other.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD without cardiogenic shock, multivessel PCI within the index hospitalization, either in a single procedure or staged, represents the safest and most efficacious approach. The different timings of multivessel PCI did not result in any significant differences in all-cause death. This study is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023457794).</p>","PeriodicalId":38430,"journal":{"name":"Revista española de cardiología (English ed.)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Timing of multivessel revascularization in stable patients with STEMI: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Felix Voll, Constantin Kuna, Maria Scalamogna, Thorsten Kessler, Sebastian Kufner, Tobias Rheude, Hendrik B Sager, Erion Xhepa, Jens Wiebe, Michael Joner, Robert A Byrne, Heribert Schunkert, Gjin Ndrepepa, Barbara E Stähli, Adnan Kastrati, Salvatore Cassese\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rec.2024.06.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction and objectives: </strong>Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) is recommended in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) without cardiogenic shock. The present network meta-analysis investigated the optimal timing of MV-PCI in this context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We pooled the aggregated data from randomized trials investigating stable STEMI patients with multivessel CAD treated with a strategy of either MV-PCI or culprit vessel-only PCI. The primary outcome was all-cause death. The main secondary outcomes were cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 11 trials, a total of 10 507 patients were randomly assigned to MV-PCI (same sitting, n=1683; staged during the index hospitalization, n=3460; staged during a subsequent hospitalization within 45 days, n=3275) or to culprit vessel-only PCI (n=2089). The median follow-up was 18.6 months. In comparison with culprit vessel-only PCI, MV-PCI staged during the index hospitalization significantly reduced all-cause death (risk ratio, 0.73; 95%CI, 0.56-0.92; P=.008) and ranked as possibly the best treatment option for this outcome compared with all other strategies. In comparison with culprit vessel-only PCI, a MV-PCI reduced cardiovascular mortality without differences dependent on the timing of revascularization. MV-PCI within the index hospitalization, either in a single procedure or staged, significantly reduced myocardial infarction and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, with no significant difference between each other.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD without cardiogenic shock, multivessel PCI within the index hospitalization, either in a single procedure or staged, represents the safest and most efficacious approach. The different timings of multivessel PCI did not result in any significant differences in all-cause death. This study is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023457794).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38430,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista española de cardiología (English ed.)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista española de cardiología (English ed.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2024.06.002\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista española de cardiología (English ed.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2024.06.002","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Timing of multivessel revascularization in stable patients with STEMI: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Introduction and objectives: Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) is recommended in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) without cardiogenic shock. The present network meta-analysis investigated the optimal timing of MV-PCI in this context.
Methods: We pooled the aggregated data from randomized trials investigating stable STEMI patients with multivessel CAD treated with a strategy of either MV-PCI or culprit vessel-only PCI. The primary outcome was all-cause death. The main secondary outcomes were cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization.
Results: Among 11 trials, a total of 10 507 patients were randomly assigned to MV-PCI (same sitting, n=1683; staged during the index hospitalization, n=3460; staged during a subsequent hospitalization within 45 days, n=3275) or to culprit vessel-only PCI (n=2089). The median follow-up was 18.6 months. In comparison with culprit vessel-only PCI, MV-PCI staged during the index hospitalization significantly reduced all-cause death (risk ratio, 0.73; 95%CI, 0.56-0.92; P=.008) and ranked as possibly the best treatment option for this outcome compared with all other strategies. In comparison with culprit vessel-only PCI, a MV-PCI reduced cardiovascular mortality without differences dependent on the timing of revascularization. MV-PCI within the index hospitalization, either in a single procedure or staged, significantly reduced myocardial infarction and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, with no significant difference between each other.
Conclusions: In patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD without cardiogenic shock, multivessel PCI within the index hospitalization, either in a single procedure or staged, represents the safest and most efficacious approach. The different timings of multivessel PCI did not result in any significant differences in all-cause death. This study is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023457794).