Staged Versus Immediate Complete Revascularization in Patients With STEMI and Multivessel Disease: An Updated Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials With Trial Sequential Analysis.

Q3 Medicine
Critical Pathways in Cardiology Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-25 DOI:10.1097/HPC.0000000000000422
Mir W Majeed, Zainab Humayun, Dhruvi K Joshi, Khubaib Mohammad Murtafa, Leo Consoli, Mohammad S Arif, Sadiya S Khanday, Rohit V Srinivasan, Mariano G Ruelas, Muhammad Waleed, Piyush Ratan, Shariq A Wani, Bismah A Ali, Saima Zehra, Omar Baqal, Mohsin R Mantoo, Khalid H Changal, Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula
{"title":"Staged Versus Immediate Complete Revascularization in Patients With STEMI and Multivessel Disease: An Updated Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials With Trial Sequential Analysis.","authors":"Mir W Majeed, Zainab Humayun, Dhruvi K Joshi, Khubaib Mohammad Murtafa, Leo Consoli, Mohammad S Arif, Sadiya S Khanday, Rohit V Srinivasan, Mariano G Ruelas, Muhammad Waleed, Piyush Ratan, Shariq A Wani, Bismah A Ali, Saima Zehra, Omar Baqal, Mohsin R Mantoo, Khalid H Changal, Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula","doi":"10.1097/HPC.0000000000000422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Complete revascularization improves outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD); however, the optimal timing of noninfarct-related artery intervention during the index procedure, immediate revascularization (IR) versus a staged approach (SR), remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing SR and IR in patients with STEMI and MVD. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events. Secondary outcomes included all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, stroke, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, and heart failure hospitalization. Random-effects models with Hartung-Knapp adjustment were used. Trial sequential analysis assessed evidence conclusiveness, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Eight randomized trials, including 5077 patients (2556 SR; 2521 IR), were analyzed. No significant differences were observed between SR and IR for major adverse cardiovascular events [odds ratios (ORs), 1.07; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.76-1.49], recurrent myocardial infarction (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.80-2.14), cardiovascular mortality (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51-1.13), or all-cause mortality (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.54-1.06). Rates of stent thrombosis, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, and heart failure hospitalization were also comparable. Trial sequential analysis indicated insufficient information size to draw definitive conclusions, and the certainty of evidence ranged from very low to low. In patients with STEMI and MVD, staged and immediate complete revascularization provide comparable ischemic, safety, and mortality outcomes. Current evidence supports clinical equipoise, and revascularization timing should be individualized pending results from adequately powered trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":35914,"journal":{"name":"Critical Pathways in Cardiology","volume":"25 2","pages":"e0422"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13193176/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Pathways in Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HPC.0000000000000422","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Complete revascularization improves outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD); however, the optimal timing of noninfarct-related artery intervention during the index procedure, immediate revascularization (IR) versus a staged approach (SR), remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing SR and IR in patients with STEMI and MVD. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events. Secondary outcomes included all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, stroke, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, and heart failure hospitalization. Random-effects models with Hartung-Knapp adjustment were used. Trial sequential analysis assessed evidence conclusiveness, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Eight randomized trials, including 5077 patients (2556 SR; 2521 IR), were analyzed. No significant differences were observed between SR and IR for major adverse cardiovascular events [odds ratios (ORs), 1.07; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.76-1.49], recurrent myocardial infarction (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.80-2.14), cardiovascular mortality (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51-1.13), or all-cause mortality (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.54-1.06). Rates of stent thrombosis, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, and heart failure hospitalization were also comparable. Trial sequential analysis indicated insufficient information size to draw definitive conclusions, and the certainty of evidence ranged from very low to low. In patients with STEMI and MVD, staged and immediate complete revascularization provide comparable ischemic, safety, and mortality outcomes. Current evidence supports clinical equipoise, and revascularization timing should be individualized pending results from adequately powered trials.

STEMI和多血管疾病患者的分期与立即完全血运重建术:随机对照试验序列分析的最新荟萃分析
完全血运重建术改善st段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)和多支冠状动脉疾病(MVD)患者的预后然而,在指标手术过程中,非梗死相关动脉介入治疗的最佳时机,即立即血运重建术(IR)还是分阶段方法(SR),仍不确定。我们对比较STEMI和MVD患者的SR和IR的随机对照试验进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。主要结局是主要不良心血管事件。次要结局包括全因死亡率和心血管死亡率、复发性心肌梗死、计划外缺血驱动的血运重建术、支架血栓形成、中风、大出血、急性肾损伤和心力衰竭住院。采用Hartung-Knapp平差随机效应模型。试验序贯分析评估证据的结论性,并使用分级推荐评估、发展和评估来评估证据的确定性。8项随机试验,包括5077例患者(2556例SR; 2521例IR)进行了分析。SR和IR在主要不良心血管事件方面无显著差异[优势比(or), 1.07;95%置信区间(CI), 0.76-1.49),复发性心肌梗死(OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.80-2.14),心血管死亡率(OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51-1.13),或全因死亡率(OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.54-1.06)。支架内血栓形成、中风、计划外缺血驱动的血运重建术、大出血、急性肾损伤和心力衰竭住院率也具有可比性。试验顺序分析表明,信息量不足,无法得出明确的结论,证据的确定性从非常低到很低。在STEMI和MVD患者中,分期和立即完全血运重建术可提供相当的缺血、安全性和死亡率结果。目前的证据支持临床平衡,血运重建的时机应该个性化,等待足够有力的试验结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Critical Pathways in Cardiology
Critical Pathways in Cardiology Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Critical Pathways in Cardiology provides a single source for the diagnostic and therapeutic protocols in use at hospitals worldwide for patients with cardiac disorders. The Journal presents critical pathways for specific diagnoses—complete with evidence-based rationales—and also publishes studies of these protocols" effectiveness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书