Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in Older Patients With ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Individual Patient Meta-Analysis

  • Gianluca Campo
  • , Felix Böhm
  • , Thomas Engstrøm
  • , Pieter C. Smits
  • , Islam Y. Elgendy
  • , Gerry P. McCann
  • , David A. Wood
  • , Matteo Serenelli
  • , Stefan James
  • , Dan Eik Høfsten
  • , Bianca M. Boxm-De Klerk
  • , Adrian Banning
  • , John A. Cairns
  • , Rita Pavasini
  • , Goran Stankovic
  • , Petr Kala
  • , Henning Kelbæk
  • , Emanuele Barbato
  • , Ilija Srdanovic
  • , Mohamed Hamza
  • Amerjeet S. Banning, Simone Biscaglia, Shamir Mehta

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

30 Scopus citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Complete revascularization is the standard treatment for patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. The FIRE trial (Functional Assessment in Elderly Myocardial Infarction Patients With Multivessel Disease) confirmed the benefit of complete revascularization in a population of older patients, but the follow-up is limited to 1 year. Therefore, the long-term benefit (>1 year) of this strategy in older patients is debated. To address this, an individual patient data meta-analysis was conducted in patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction ≥75 years of age enrolled in randomized clinical trials investigating complete versus culprit-only revascularization strategies. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database were systematically searched to identify randomized clinical trials comparing complete versus culprit-only revascularization. Individual patient-level data were collected from the relevant trials. The primary end point was death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. The secondary end point was cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Data from 7 randomized clinical trials encompassing 1733 patients (917 randomized to culprit-only and 816 to complete revascularization) were analyzed. The median age was 79 [interquartile range, 77–83] years. Of the patients, 595 (34%) were female. Follow-up ranged from a minimum of 6 months to a maximum of 6.2 years (median, 2.5 [interquartile range, 1–3.8] years). Complete revascularization reduced the primary end point up to 4 years (hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63–0.96]) but not at the longest available follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.69–1.01]). Complete revascularization significantly reduced the occurrence of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction at the longest available follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.58–0.99]). This was observed even when censoring the follow-up at each year. Long-term rate of death did not differ between complete and culprit-only revascularization arms. CONCLUSIONS: In this individual patient data meta-analysis of older patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, complete revascularization reduced the primary end point of death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization up to 4 years. At the longest follow-up, complete revascularization reduced the composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction but not the primary end point.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1508-1516
Number of pages9
JournalCirculation
Volume150
Issue number19
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 5 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 American Heart Association, Inc.

Keywords

  • complete revascularization
  • meta-analysis
  • multivessel disease
  • myocardial infarction
  • older patients

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Physiology (medical)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in Older Patients With ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Individual Patient Meta-Analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this