Skip to main content
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

01-04-2015 | Original Article | Uitgave 4/2015 Open Access

Netherlands Heart Journal 4/2015

Multivessel revascularisation versus infarct-related artery only revascularisation during the index primary PCI in STEMI patients with multivessel disease: a meta-analysis

Tijdschrift:
Netherlands Heart Journal > Uitgave 4/2015
Auteurs:
S. Rasoul, V. van Ommen, J. Vainer, M. Ilhan, L. Veenstra, R. Erdem, L.A.W. Ruiters, R. Theunissen, J.C.A. Hoorntje

Background

About half of the patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have multivessel disease. Compared with STEMI patients with single-vessel disease, STEMI patients with multivessel disease have a worse prognosis [13].
The current guidelines recommend intervention in the infarct-related artery only during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) except in haemodynamically unstable patients [4]; this is mainly due to the fact that evidence supporting immediate (preventive) intervention in the non-infarct-related artery is a matter of debate.
There are controversial data regarding infarct-related artery only revascularisation (IRA-PCI) versus multivessel revascularisation (MV-PCI) in STEMI patients with multivessel disease [519].
Previously, other meta-analyses assessed MV-PCI versus IRA-PCI; however, in those meta-analysis, MV-PCI was defined as same stage PCI as well as staged PCI days after the primary PCI. Furthermore, the results of the most recent trials were not included [2023].
We performed a meta-analysis comparing outcome in MV-PCI versus IRA-PCI during the index of primary PCI in STEMI patients with multivessel disease.

Methods

Literature review

The literature search was performed from Cochrane Library, EMBASE and MEDLINE, from January 2014 to December 2014. The terms “ST-elevation myocardial infarction”, “coronary angioplasty”, “percutaneous coronary intervention”, “multi-vessel”, “non-culprit”, “culprit coronary revascularisation”, “complete revascularisation”, “myocardial infarction” and their variations were used as keywords. The search was limited to records in humans and English language articles.

Study selection

Two reviewers independently screened all citations for eligibility. Both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing multivessel versus culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease treated with primary PCI were included. Studies enrolling patients with other than STEMI or comparing alternative revascularisation strategies were excluded. Full-text citations and abstracts were selected and independently screened for eligibility in the meta-analysis. The unpublished Complete Versus culprit-Lesion only PRimary PCI Trial (CVLPRIT) was also included because of its importance for this meta-analysis [20]. Quality of abstracted studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias [24].
Information on study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, number of patients and clinical outcome was extracted by two investigators. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Finally, all co-authors had full access to all study data and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Definitions

MV-PCI was defined as PCI of the infarct-related artery (IRA) and non-IRA performed during the index primary PCI procedure for STEMI. IRA-PCI is defined as the PCI of the IRA only during the index primary PCI procedure. Major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was defined as the composite of death, re-infarction and revascularisation. Bleeding included both minor and major bleeding.

Endpoints/data abstraction

The primary clinical endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were re-infarction, revascularisation, bleeding and MACE.

Statistical analysis

Continuous data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and dichotomous data as absolute values and percentages. Mantel–Haenszel model was used to construct random effects summary odds ratios (ORs) and risk differences. All analyses were performed using Review Manager (RevMan, Version 5.0, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration 2008) and SAS 9.3, (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). p-Value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The search yielded 15 studies [519]: 5 RCTs and 10 cohort studies. The characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1. A total of 35,975 patients comprised the study population including 1134 (3.2 %) patients from RCTs. MV-PCI was performed in 5109 (12.2 %) patients, and 30,939 (85.8 %) patients underwent IRA-PCI.
Table 1
Study characteristics
Study
Design
Subjects
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary endpoint
Mean length follow-up
Cavender
Cohort study
28,936
STEMI with CAD of > 1 major artery
LM, staged PCI (multiple PCIs before hospital discharge), thrombolytic
In-hospital mortality
In-hospital
Corpus
Cohort study
532
STEMI with > 70 % stenosis of ≥ 2 arteries
PCI of graft or after angioplasty, LM, planned staged revascularisation
MACE
12 months
Di Mario
Randomised
69
STEMI with MVD and 1–3 lesions in non-culprit artery technically amenable to revascularisation by stent
Lesion in vein and arterial grafts, prior angioplasty, thrombolytic, cardiogenic shock, LM
Repeat revascularisation
12 months
Dziewierz
Cohort study
777
STEMI with MVD 2–3 lesions in non-culprit artery
CABG
All-cause mortality
12 months
Hannan
Cohort study
1006
STEMI with MVD
LM disease, prior thrombolysis, prior CABG, cardiogenic shock, missing EF
All-cause mortality
42 months
Khattab
Cohort study
73
STEMI with > 70 % stenosis of ≥ 2 coronary arteries or major branches
Non-IRA diameter < 2.5 mm, LM disease, previous MI
MACE
12 months
Kornowski
Cohort study
668
STEMI with MVD
TIMI flow < 3 in non-IRA
MACE
12 months
Ochala
Randomised
92
STEMI with > 70 % stenosis of ≥ 2 coronary arteries, successful PCI of IRA
Cardiogenic shock, LM disease, pervious CABG, renal insufficiency, severe valvular disease
Improvement in LVEF
6 months
Politi
Randomised
214
STEMI with > 70 % stenosis of ≥ 2 coronary arteries or major branches
Cardiogenic shock, LM > 50 %, pervious CABG, severe valvular heart disease or unsuccessful procedure
MACE
30 months
Qarawani
Cohort study
120
STEMI with > 70 % multivessel narrowing
Cardiogenic shock, LM disease
Clinical outcome
12 months
Roe
Cohort study
129
STEMI with ≥ 50 % stenosis of ≥ 1 non-culprit artery in addition to culprit IRA
PCI of branch vessels of IRA, LM disease
MACE (death, re-MI, and revascularisation)
6 months
Toma
Cohort study
2201
STEMI with > 70 % stenosis of > 1 major epicardial artery and/or a non-IRA requiring intervention
PCI on LM, second intervention in the culprit artery
MACE (death, CHF, shock)
3 months
Varani
Cohort study
399
STEMI with > 70 % stenosis of ≥ 2 epicardial arteries or major branches
Occlusion after prior angioplasty, cardiogenic shock, pulmonary oedema
Death and repeat revascularisation
1 month
Wald
Randomised
465
STEMI with ≥ 50 % stenosis of ≥ 1 non-IRA in addition to IRA
Cardiogenic shock, LM > 50 %, pervious CABG
MACE
23 months
Gershlick
Randomised
294
STEMI with > 70 % stenosis of ≥ 2 epicardial arteries or major branches (> 2 mm)
Cardiogenic shock, previous MI, pervious CABG, chronic kidney disease, CTO
MACE
12 months
CABG coronary artery bypass graft, CAD coronary artery disease, CHF congestive heart failure, CTO chronic total occlusion, IRA infarct-related artery, LM left main artery, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, MACE major adverse cardiac events, MI myocardial infarction, MVD multivessel disease, PCI percutaneous coronary intervention, STEMI ST-elevation myocardial infarction, TIMI thrombolysis in myocardial infarction

Patient characteristics

Table 2 shows the baseline characteristics of the study population. The vast majority of the studies excluded patients with cardiogenic shock and in two trials cardiogenic shock was not reported.
Table 2
Baseline characteristics
 
Age
Male (%)
Diabetes (%)
Anterior MI (%)
Cardiogenic shock (%)
Study
MV-PCI
IRA-PCI
MV-PCI
IRA-PCI
MV-PCI
IRA-PCI
MV-PCI
IRA-PCI
MV-PCI
IRA-PCI
Cavender
60
62
71.5
72.1
24.7
23.4
NR
NR
13.8
10.3
Corpus
64
63
70
70
19
17
NR
NR
3.3
3.4
Di Mario
64
65
88.2
84.6
11.5
41.5
51.9
58.8
Excluded
Excluded
Dziewier
68
68
72.2
72.2
NR
NR
NR
NR
Not reported
Not reported
Hannan
NR
NR
77.5
75.5
23.7
21.4
NR
NR
Excluded
Excluded
Khattab
69
65
75
78
7
16
57
54
3.6
4.4
Kornowski
62
63.5
80.9
79.6
15.3
18.1
40.6
35.1
Not reported
Not reported
Ochala
65
67
72.9
75
31
34
45.8
45.4
Excluded
Excluded
Politi
65
65
76.9
77.8
14
21
48
43
Excluded
Excluded
Qarawani
66
67
62
61
13
16
51
52
Excluded
Excluded
Roe
64
63
77.2
65.8
37
29
46
41
28
28
Toma
64
64
74
73
12
20
56
48
3
3
Varani
69
67
68.7
67
NR
NR
49
34
Excluded
Excluded
Wald
62
62
76
81
35
48
29
39
Excluded
Excluded
Gershlick
65
65
85
77
12.9
14.3
36
35.6
Excluded
Excluded
IRA-PCI infarct-related artery only revascularisation, MI myocardial infarction, MV-PCI multivessel revascularisation, NR not reported

Clinical outcomes

The primary endpoint, all-cause mortality, was significantly higher in the MV-PCI (8.5 %) compared with the IRA-PCI (5.4 %) group (OR 1.57, 95 % CI 1.40–1.76, p < 0.001) (Fig. 1). However, analysis limited to the five RCTs only showed no significant difference in mortality rate between MV-PCI and IRA-PCI (OR 0.74, 95 % CI 0.43–1.26, p = 0.27).

Secondary endpoints

Rates of re-infarction (OR 0.54, 95 % CI 0.34–0.88, p = 0.01) and revascularisation (OR 0.67, 95 % CI 0.48–0.93, p = 0.002) were lower in the MV-PCI group. This was found for both randomised and cohort trials (Fig. 2a and b).
Bleeding complications (major and minor) occurred more often in the MV-PCI group: 6.2 versus 5.1 %, (OR 1.24, 95 % CI 1.08–1.42, p = 0.002) and this was mainly found in the cohort studies (Fig. 3).
MACE was comparable between the two groups: 19 versus 19.5 % (OR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.74–1.19, p = 0.59). In the RCT trials, MACE was significantly lower in patients undergoing MV-PCI compared with the IRA-PCI group (Fig. 4).

Discussion

In this large scale meta-analysis, we found that PCI of the IRA and non-IRA performed during the index primary PCI procedure for STEMI, compared with IRA-only PCI, is associated with a higher mortality rate and more bleeding complications, but less re-infarction and revascularisation. Rates of MACE were comparable between the two groups. However, there was a clear difference in outcome between the randomised trials and cohort studies. In the cohort studies, mortality and bleeding complications were significantly higher in the MV-PCI group; however, these were not significantly different in the randomised trials between the MV-PCI group versus IRA-PCI group (Figs. 1 and 4).
Approximately 40–65 % of patients with STEMI have multivessel disease with increased risk of morbidity and mortality compared with single-vessel disease [13]. The underlying mechanism for this adverse prognosis may be plaque instability, impaired myocardial perfusion and contractility, arrhythmia and death.
The potential advantages of MV-PCI during the index primary PCI may prevent recurrent ischaemia and infarction by decreasing total ischaemia and improvement in myocardial function [25, 26]. Plaque instability may not be limited to the IRA but may involve other territories in the coronary vasculature. Moreover, complete revascularisation has been associated with improved long-term clinical outcome in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Finally, patients and clinicians may be more comfortable with complete revascularisation rather than medical therapy for angiographically significant residual coronary stenosis, especially if they are associated with a large territory of myocardial jeopardy [2730].
However, multivessel PCI also has disadvantages. In the acute phase of STEMI, intervention of a non-culprit lesion may result in unnecessary haemodynamic compromise during PCI with balloon inflations or vessel-related complications (dissection, no-reflow) at a time when the patient has regional myocardial compromise. Given the extended duration of the intervention, increased contrast load and additional adverse peri-procedural outcomes may occur. Another important concern is poor assessment of lesion severity in non-culprit artery [22]. Hanratty et al. [30] demonstrated that 21 % of the non-culprit lesions are overestimated at time of AMI, and this may affect unnecessary revascularisation and inappropriate decision making. The severity of the non-culprit artery was judged visually and PCI of the non-IRA was not ischaemia guided in any of the studies included in this meta-analysis.
There is only one randomised study in which revascularisations on the non-IRA was guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR). FFR of the non-IRA was performed 7.5 days after primary PCI, and they found functional stenosis severity of non-culprit lesions is frequently overestimated and invasive strategy for non-culprit lesions did not lead to an increase in ejection fraction or a reduction in MACE [31].
Prior meta-analyses in this area have reported varying results due to differences in study design, comparison of different groups and different analytical methods [2023]. Vlaar et al. [20] found that the strategy of staged PCI resulted in lower short- and long-term mortality compared with MV-PCI or IRA-PCI. Bangalore et al. [21] found that MV-PCI compared with IRA-PCI resulted in similar long-term mortality but a lower long-term rate of MACE. A recent meta-analysis showed that MV-PCI compared with IRA-PCI resulted in worse outcomes in cohort studies, but not in the randomised clinical trials [22]. This is in line with our findings.
Furthermore, Bainey et al. [23] found that staged multivessel PCI was superior to multivessel PCI during the index procedure.
The difference in outcome between the IRA-only and MV-PCI group may not only be due to revascularisation, differences in baseline may also play an important role. Patients in the MV-PCI group have a higher baseline risk evidenced by a higher proportion of anterior myocardial infarction and more cardiogenic shock.
Based on the current evidence, we think that in the acute phase of STEMI, revascularisation should be limited to the IRA only, except in patients with haemodynamic instability, as recommended by the current guidelines [4]. Staged and ischaemia-driven revascularisation of non-culprit lesions may be the treatment strategy for STEMI patients with multivessel disease. Further studies are needed to confirm this. The current ongoing COMPLETE and COMPARE ACUTE trials are studying these issues.

Limitations

This meta-analysis was not performed on individual patient data. Caution should be exercised in the interpretation of the results, given the potential clinical heterogeneity among trials, due to varying patient populations and potential treatment bias. No information was available with regard to extent of coronary disease, use of drug-eluting stents, duration of dual antiplatelet therapy and access site. The short follow-up period of some studies is another important limitation. Furthermore, only a minority of the patients (14.2 %) undergo MV-PCI during the index procedure, so it is hard to draw definitive conclusions based on this meta-analysis.
In addition, no information was available regarding referral method, ambulance versus referring via non-PCI centres, factors that may affect total ischaemic time [32].
Finally, although the STEMI and non-STEMI are not uniquely related to different pathophysiological mechanisms [33], our results cannot be applied to non-STEMI patients with multivessel disease.

Conclusion

Multivessel PCI during the index of primary PCI in STEMI patients is associated with a higher mortality and more bleeding, but a lower risk of re-intervention and re-infarction. Additional large-scale randomised trials are needed to guide the therapy and the timing for these patient subsets.
Funding
None.
Conflict of interest
None.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Onze productaanbevelingen

Netherlands Heart Journal

Het Netherlands Heart Journal wordt uitgegeven in samenwerking met de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Cardiologie en de Nederlandse Hartstichting. Het tijdschrift is Engelstalig en wordt gratis beschikbaa ...

Literatuur
Over dit artikel

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2015

Netherlands Heart Journal 4/2015 Naar de uitgave