+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Complete versus culprit only revascularization in acute ST elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis



Complete versus culprit only revascularization in acute ST elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis



Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 77(2): 163-170



Current guidelines recommend against the revascularization of noninfarct related artery (complete revascularization [CR]) in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and no hemodynamic compromise, though level of evidence is C. Our aim was to examine the available evidence to determine any advantage of CR over culprit only revascularization (COR). We systematically searched medline using key words-"culprit coronary revascularization," "complete revascularization myocardial infarction," and "multivessel STEMI" for studies reporting outcomes after COR versus CR during primary procedure or index hospitalization published in English language and indexed before February 2010. A random effect or fixed effect meta-analysis, as applicable, was performed using RevMan 5 (Cochrane Center, Denmark). Nine eligible nonrandomized studies amounting to 4,530 patients in CR and 27,323 patients in COR group were included. In addition, two small randomized trials were reviewed and included in secondary analysis. Majority of patients were hemodynamically stable. Major adverse cardiovascular events (Odds ratio [OR] = 0.95, 95% CI 0.47-1.90) and long term mortality (OR = 1.10, 95% CI 0.76-1.59) were similar. The marginal increased odds of in-hospital mortality was derived from a single study with no difference found after sensitivity and cumulative analysis (OR = 1.21 95% CI 0.85-1.73). Current analysis of heterogeneous studies did not reveal any benefit of CR over COR in patients with STEMI. However, also provide no conclusive evidence of increased in hospital mortality after CR. A randomized trial is needed to confirm these findings and recognize any subgroup which might benefit from CR.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 052260744

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 20517993

DOI: 10.1002/ccd.22647


Related references

Fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization versus culprit-only revascularization in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multi-vessel disease patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Bmc Cardiovascular Disorders 19(1): 49, 2019

Culprit-vessel versus complete revascularization during primary angioplasty in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an updated meta-analysis. International Journal of Cardiology 178: 171-174, 2015

Complete revascularization versus culprit-only revascularization in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. International Journal of Cardiology 228: 844-852, 2017

Complete versus culprit-only revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Bmc Cardiovascular Disorders 19(1): 91, 2019

Culprit vessel only vs immediate complete revascularization in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Cardiology 37(12): 765-772, 2014

Complete versus culprit-only revascularization during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease: a meta-analysis. Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences 29(3): 140-149, 2013

Complete versus culprit-only revascularization for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials. Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions 8(4):, 2015

Culprit-Only Versus Complete Coronary Revascularization After ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction- A Systematic Review and Analysis of Clinical Outcomes. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia 33(3): 850-857, 2019

Meta-analysis of multivessel coronary artery revascularization versus culprit-only revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. American Journal of Cardiology 107(9): 1300-1310, 2011

Culprit-Lesion-Only Versus Multivessel Revascularization Using Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-Based Analysis. Korean Circulation Journal 41(12): 718-725, 2011

Clinical impact of simultaneous complete revascularization vs. culprit only primary angioplasty in patients with st-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: a meta-analysis. Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis 31(2): 217-225, 2011

Rebuttal: Culprit only versus complete revascularization in st elevation myocardial infarction. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 79(4): 683-684, 2012

Comparison of Outcomes of Staged Complete Revascularization Versus Culprit Lesion-Only Revascularization for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease. American Journal of Cardiology 119(4): 508-514, 2017

Complete versus culprit-only revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Internal and Emergency Medicine 11(4): 499-506, 2016

A Randomized Trial of Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization During Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Diabetic Patients With Acute ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multi Vessel Disease. Journal of Interventional Cardiology 29(3): 241-247, 2016