Medicine · 2025
Multivessel versus culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention in non-ST elevation myocardial infarction: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Khandait Harshwardhan, Sachdeva Sonali, Patel Aditya, Ali Ruhma, Abruzzo Alexandra, Shrestha Abhigan Babu, Jaiswal Vikash, Aryal Binit, Aldaraysah Murad, Naqi Muniba, Meshram Nandu, Bhattad Venugopal Brijmohan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Multivessel disease is common in non-ST elevation myocardial infarction patients. However, whether multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention is superior to culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention is unknown.
METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted including studies that compared multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) and culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention among non-ST elevation myocardial infarction patients. Relative risk (RR) for mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization and procedural complications was calculated using a random effects model. Seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis.
RESULTS: There was no difference in short-term outcomes for mortality (RR 0.917, 95% CI 0.613-1.371, P = .672), MI (RR 0.960, 95% CI 0.612-1.507, P = .861), and stent thrombosis (RR 1.338, 95% CI 0.655-2.733, P = .424). Long-term mortality and repeat revascularization was significantly lower in the MV-PCI group (RR 0.746, 95% CI 0.644-0.865, P < .001 and RR 0.775, 95% CI 0.629-0.954, P = .016), respectively.
CONCLUSION: No significant difference was demonstrated between the 2 strategies in the short-term outcomes. However, long-term outcomes in the MV-PCI group were superior to culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in non-ST elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease. Long-term outcomes included mortality, repeat revascularization, stent thrombosis, and MI. However, randomized controlled trials are needed to compare the safety and efficacy of these strategies.
METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted including studies that compared multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) and culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention among non-ST elevation myocardial infarction patients. Relative risk (RR) for mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization and procedural complications was calculated using a random effects model. Seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis.
RESULTS: There was no difference in short-term outcomes for mortality (RR 0.917, 95% CI 0.613-1.371, P = .672), MI (RR 0.960, 95% CI 0.612-1.507, P = .861), and stent thrombosis (RR 1.338, 95% CI 0.655-2.733, P = .424). Long-term mortality and repeat revascularization was significantly lower in the MV-PCI group (RR 0.746, 95% CI 0.644-0.865, P < .001 and RR 0.775, 95% CI 0.629-0.954, P = .016), respectively.
CONCLUSION: No significant difference was demonstrated between the 2 strategies in the short-term outcomes. However, long-term outcomes in the MV-PCI group were superior to culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in non-ST elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease. Long-term outcomes included mortality, repeat revascularization, stent thrombosis, and MI. However, randomized controlled trials are needed to compare the safety and efficacy of these strategies.