Pathfinding to an optimal strategy of revascularization in primary coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

OBJECTIVES: In ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), current guidelines discourage treatment of the non-culprit lesions at the time of the primary intervention. Latest trials have challenged this strategy suggesting benefit of early complete revascularization. We performed a Bayesian multiple treatment network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in STEMI on culprit-only intervention (CO) versus different timing multivessel revascularization, including immediate (IM), same hospitalization (SH) or later staged (ST).

METHODS: Outcome parameters were pooled with a random-effects model. For multiple-treatment meta-analysis, a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo method was used.

RESULTS: Eight RCTs involving 2077 patients were identified. ST and IM revascularization was associated with a decrease in major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) compared to culprit-only approach (risk ratio [RR]: 0.43 credible interval [CrI]: 0.22-0.77 and RR: 0.36 CrI: 0.24-0.54, respectively). IM was superior to SH (RR: 0.49 CrI: 0.29-0.80). With regards to myocardial infarction IM was superior to SH (RR: 0.18 CrI: 0.02-0.99). The posterior probability of being the best choice of treatment regarding the frequency of MACEs was 71.2% for IM, 28.5% for ST, 0.3% for SH and 0.05% for culprit-only approach.

CONCLUSIONS: Results from RCTs indicate that immediate or staged revascularization of non-culprit lesions reduces major adverse events in patients after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Differences in MACEs suggest superiority of the immediate or staged intervention; however, further randomized trials are needed to determine the optimal timing of revascularization of the non-culprit lesions.