Background: Whether revascularization should be performed as multivessel intervention at the time of index procedure (MV-index), staged procedure (MV-staged), or culprit only intervention (COI) in patients with multivessel disease (MVD) presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is unclear. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the optimal revascularization strategy in this patient population.
Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were systematically searched to identify all relevant studies. The outcomes assessed were major cardiac adverse events (MACE), all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and revascularization. A Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was used to calculate odds ratio (OR) with credible interval (CrI).
Results: Thirteen studies with 8,066 patients were included in the analysis. There was a decreased risk of MACE (MV-index vs. COI: OR, 0.35; 95% CrI, 0.23-0.55; MV-staged vs COI: OR, 0.52; 95% CrI, 0.31-0.81) and revascularization (MV-index vs. COI: OR, 0.27; 95% CrI, 0.15-0.49; MV-staged vs. COI: OR, 0.38; 95% CrI, 0.19-0.70) with MV-index intervention and MV-staged intervention compared with COI. However, MV-index intervention and not MV-staged intervention was associated with a decreased risk of MI (MV-index vs. COI: OR, 0.35; 95% CrI, 0.12-0.93; MV-staged vs. COI: OR, 0.65; 95% CrI, 0.24-1.59) compared with COI.
Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that multivessel intervention either at index procedure or as staged intervention may be more efficacious compared to COI in patients with MVD presenting with ACS.
Keywords: acute coronary syndrome; multivessel disease; multivessel intervention; network analysis; revascularization; staged intervention.
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.