Meta-analysis Comparing Multivessel Versus Culprit Coronary Arterial Revascularization for Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes

Abstract

We present a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing efficacy and safety outcomes between single procedure multivessel revascularization (MVR) and culprit vessel only revascularization in patients presenting with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). NSTE-ACS is the most common form of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and multivessel disease is common. There is no consensus on the most efficacious single procedure revascularization strategy for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention not meeting coronary artery bypass grafting criteria. Studies in PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically reviewed, and 15 studies met criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Baseline characteristics between the groups were similar. A random effects model was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity of studies was assessed using Cochrane's Q and Higgins I² tests. For short-term outcomes, patients who underwent MVR had higher rates of major adverse cardiac events (OR 1.14; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.29; p = 0.03); and stroke (OR 1.94; 95% CI 1.01 to 3.72; p = 0.05), but lower rates of urgent or emergent coronary artery bypass grafting (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.43; p <0.00001). In the long-term, MVR patients had less frequent major adverse cardiac events (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.61-0.93; p = 0.009), all-cause death (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; p = 0.03), and repeat revascularization, (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90; p = 0.01). MVR following NSTE-ACS was associated with higher short-term risk, but long-term benefit. In conclusion, these results support the use of single procedure multivessel revascularization for NSTE-ACS patients who are suitable candidates at the time of percutaneous coronary intervention.