Complete versus culprit-only revascularization during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease: A meta-analysis

Complete versus culprit-only revascularization in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease is controversial. Current guidelines recommend treatment of the culprit artery alone during the primary procedure. However, with improvements in stent technique and with the use of new antiplatelet drugs (GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors), complete revascularization (CR) at an early stage is attracting increasing attention. We conducted an English language search on Medline (PubMed database), Embase, and the Cochrane databases between January 1966 and January 2011, as well as a search on the China National Knowledge Internet (1979-January 2011), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (1978-January 2011). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or non-RCTs that compared the two strategies in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease (MVD) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were included. Thirteen articles were selected, 8240 patients in the CR group and 51,998 in the culprit-only revascularization group. CR was associated with an increased short-term mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (1.26, 1.53)], a long-term mortality [OR = 1.35, 95% CI = (1.09, 1.67)], and an increased risk of renal failure [OR (95% CI) = 1.24 (1.11, 1.38)] in patients with STEMI and MVD at the primary procedure. In addition, CR did not reduce the rate of short-term major adverse cardiac events [OR (95% CI) = 1.52 (0.88, 2.61)] and remyocardial infarction [OR = 0.57, 95% CI = (0.25, 1.29)]. However, CR was associated with a marked reduction in the rate of revascularization [OR = 0.45, 95% CI = (0.27, 0.74)]. This analysis of current available data demonstrates that CR during primary PCI can put those patients with STEMI and MVD at risk. To clarify this issue, large RCTs are needed.