Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
---|---|---|---|---|
2950553 | Journal of the American College of Cardiology | 2008 | 9 Pages |
ObjectivesOur purpose was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the infarct-related artery (IRA) with medical therapy in patients randomized >12 h after acute myocardial infarction (AMI).BackgroundThere is ongoing uncertainty about the risk–benefit ratio of late PCI in stable patients with AMI.MethodsPubMed, CENTRAL, and other databases were searched (July 2007). Studies were included if they compared PCI with medical management and randomized patients >12 h and up to 60 days after AMI, and were excluded if patients were hemodynamically unstable. Odds ratios (ORs) were pooled for dichotomous outcomes, with all-cause mortality as the primary end point. Left cardiac remodeling parameters were also pooled with generic inverse-variance weighting.ResultsWe retrieved 10 studies that enrolled 3,560 patients, with median time from AMI to randomization of 12 days (range 1 to 26 days), and follow-up of 2.8 years (42 days to 10 years). Randomization allocated 1,779 subjects to PCI and 1,781 to medical treatment. There were 112 (6.3%) and 149 (8.4%) deaths in the 2 groups, respectively, yielding significantly improved survival in the PCI group (OR 0.49 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.94], p = 0.030). These benefits were associated with similarly favorable effects on cardiac remodeling, such as improved left ventricular ejection fraction in the PCI group (+4.4% change [95% CI 1.1 to 7.6], p = 0.009).ConclusionsPercutaneous coronary intervention of the IRA performed late (12 h to 60 days) after AMI is associated with significant improvements in cardiac function and survival.