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

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.

[1]  G. Schuler,et al.  Editor’s Choice- Impact of immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus culprit lesion intervention on 1-year outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Results of the randomised IABP-SHOCK II trial , 2017, European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care.

[2]  G. Stone,et al.  Survival After Varying Revascularization Strategies in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis. , 2016, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[3]  V. Sundaram,et al.  What is the optimal approach to a non- culprit stenosis after ST-elevation myocardial infarction - Conservative therapy or upfront revascularization? An updated meta-analysis of randomized trials. , 2016, International journal of cardiology.

[4]  E. Ohman,et al.  Relationship Between Infarct Size and Outcomes Following Primary PCI: Patient-Level Analysis From 10 Randomized Trials. , 2016, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[5]  J. Suh,et al.  Immediate multivessel revascularization may increase cardiac death and myocardial infarction in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease: data analysis from real world practice , 2016, The Korean journal of internal medicine.

[6]  G. Stone,et al.  Long-Term Outcome of Incomplete Revascularization After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in SCAAR (Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry). , 2016, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[7]  G. Schuler,et al.  Multivessel versus culprit lesion only percutaneous revascularization plus potential staged revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Design and rationale of CULPRIT-SHOCK trial. , 2016, American heart journal.

[8]  I. Elgendy,et al.  CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE Original Studies Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization for Patients With Multi-Vessel Disease Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials , 2016 .

[9]  L. Køber,et al.  Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3—PRIMULTI): an open-label, randomised controlled trial , 2015, The Lancet.

[10]  I. Buchan,et al.  Stroke Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Type-specific incidence, outcomes and determinants seen by the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society 2007-2012 , 2015 .

[11]  J. Brachmann,et al.  Immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus culprit lesion intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results of the ALKK-PCI registry. , 2015, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[12]  M. Jeong,et al.  Culprit or multivessel revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock , 2015, Heart.

[13]  H. Swanton,et al.  Randomized Trial of Complete Versus Lesion-Only Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for STEMI and Multivessel Disease , 2015, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[14]  Deepak L. Bhatt Do we really know the CvLPRIT in Myocardial infarction? or just stent all lesions? , 2015, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[15]  Helmut Baumgartner,et al.  2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous , 2014, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[16]  G. Stone,et al.  The prognostic importance of left ventricular function in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the HORIZONS-AMI trial , 2014, European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care.

[17]  T. Lüscher,et al.  Acute multivessel revascularization improves 1-year outcome in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a nationwide study cohort from the AMIS Plus registry. , 2014, International journal of cardiology.

[18]  D. Kolte,et al.  Trends in Incidence, Management, and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock Complicating ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction in the United States , 2014, Journal of the American Heart Association.

[19]  M. Jeong,et al.  Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Nonculprit Vessels in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction* , 2014, Critical care medicine.

[20]  Michael E Matheny,et al.  Contemporary incidence, predictors, and outcomes of acute kidney injury in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: insights from the NCDR Cath-PCI registry. , 2014, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[21]  S. Mehta,et al.  Complete vs culprit-only revascularization for patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2014, American heart journal.

[22]  P. Tugwell,et al.  The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses , 2014 .

[23]  F. Eberli,et al.  Multivessel versus culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: is more worse? , 2013, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[24]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Differences in the Profile, Treatment, and Prognosis of Patients With Cardiogenic Shock by Myocardial Infarction Classification: A Report From NCDR , 2013, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[25]  C. Berry,et al.  Randomized trial of preventive angioplasty in myocardial infarction. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[26]  S. Ellis,et al.  Outcomes of culprit versus multivessel PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by shock. , 2013, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[27]  J. Garot,et al.  Primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction, resuscitated cardiac arrest, and cardiogenic shock: the role of primary multivessel revascularization. , 2013, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[28]  Jane A. Linderbaum,et al.  2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[29]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. , 2013, Circulation.

[30]  M. Hochadel,et al.  Use and outcomes of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (from the EHS-PCI Registry). , 2012, The American journal of cardiology.

[31]  B. Gersh,et al.  Procedural factors associated with percutaneous coronary intervention-related ischemic stroke. , 2012, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[32]  Helmut Baumgartner,et al.  ESC / EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization , 2014 .

[33]  D. Holmes,et al.  Clinical ResearchInterventional CardiologyCulprit Vessel Only Versus Multivessel and Staged Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Multivessel Disease in Patients Presenting With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis , 2011 .

[34]  B. Gersh,et al.  Prognostic impact of staged versus "one-time" multivessel percutaneous intervention in acute myocardial infarction: analysis from the HORIZONS-AMI (harmonizing outcomes with revascularization and stents in acute myocardial infarction) trial. , 2011, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[35]  G. Stone,et al.  Periprocedural Myocardial Infarction: Prevalence, Prognosis, and Prevention , 2010, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[36]  H. White,et al.  A severity scoring system for risk assessment of patients with cardiogenic shock: a report from the SHOCK Trial and Registry. , 2010, American heart journal.

[37]  J. Tijssen,et al.  Effect of multivessel coronary disease with or without concurrent chronic total occlusion on one-year mortality in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock. , 2010, The American journal of cardiology.

[38]  Sunil V. Rao,et al.  Prevalence, predictors, and in-hospital outcomes of non-infarct artery intervention during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry). , 2009, The American journal of cardiology.

[39]  A. Maresta,et al.  Single or multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in ST‐elevation myocardial infarction patients , 2008, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[40]  M. Zembala,et al.  Importance of complete revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2007, American heart journal.

[41]  H. White,et al.  Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. , 2006, JAMA.

[42]  C. W. Barth,et al.  Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease and acute myocardial infarction. , 2004, American heart journal.

[43]  I. Olkin,et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting , 2000 .

[44]  H. White,et al.  Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.