Background
There is uncertainty on the most appropriate management of patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and concomitant multivessel coronary artery disease. We thus performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing a culprit-only vs. multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in this setting.
Methods
Pertinent controlled clinical studies including 30 or more patients and comparing a culprit-only vs. multivessel PCI strategy in patients with STEMI were systematically searched in several databases. The primary end point was the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, i.e., the composite of death, recurrent myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization). Secondary end points included individual components of MACEs. Risk differences (RD, with 95% confidence intervals) were computed using random-effect methods.
Methods
Pertinent controlled clinical studies including 30 or more patients and comparing a culprit-only vs. multivessel PCI strategy in patients with STEMI were systematically searched in several databases. The primary end point was the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE, i.e., the composite of death, recurrent myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization). Secondary end points included individual components of MACEs. Risk differences (RD, with 95% confidence intervals) were computed using random-effect methods.
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
