Meta-Analysis Comparing Same-Sitting and Staged Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Non-Culprit Artery for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Coronary Disease

Recent trials and meta-analysis have indicated that complete revascularization (CR) of multivessel coronary disease is beneficial in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) compared to culprit-only intervention. However, the optimal timing of CR remains unclear. We aimed to analyze the optimal timing of CR in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease by performing an updated network meta-analysis using the recent largest randomized controlled trial. PUBMED and EMBASE were searched through October 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing CR and culprit-only revascularization. A random-effect network meta-analysis comparing three arms (same-sitting [during the index procedure] CR versus staged CR versus culprit-only) and 4 arms (same-sitting CR versus staged CR [in-hospital] versus staged CR [out-hospital] versus culprit-only) were performed. Eleven studies with a total of 7,015 patients were included in our analysis. There was no significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64-1.05), cardiovascular death (HR 0.69, 95%CI 0.35-1.33), myocardial infarction (HR 0.66, 95%CI 0.37-1.16), and revascularization (HR 1.05, 95%CI 0.70-1.58) between same-sitting CR and staged CR. When staged CR was further divided into staged CR during the hospitalization and after discharge, there was no significant difference in these outcomes between staged CR (in-hospital) and staged CR (out-hospital). In conclusion, in patients with multivessel disease presenting with STEMI, complete revascularization at any timing, including same-sitting, staged in-hospital, and staged out-hospital, may have similar benefits.