Complete Revascularization for Acute Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: an Overview of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

Background Culprit-only revascularization and complete revascularization are two major treatments for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with multivessel disease. Many systematic reviews have compared the efficacy and safety of the two treatments, but the review results are inconsistent and cannot be directly applied to clinical practice. Objective To perform an overview of the systematic reviews of the efficacy and safety of complete revascularization versus culprit-only revascularization for AMI with multivessel disease. Methods PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and PROSPERO databases were searched from inception to February, 2022 for systematic reviews/meta-analyses about complete revascularization versus culprit-only revascularization for AMI with multivessel disease regardless of the language and status of publication. Two researchers independently evaluated the methodological quality and evidence quality of included studies using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE, respectively. Results A total of 25 systematic reviews or meta-analyses were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally low, with one being of high quality, two being of moderate quality, and 22 being of critical low quality. Eight outcomes and 135 evidence bodies (eight were of high quality, 17 were of moderate quality, and the rest were of low or very low quality according to the GRADE classification) were identified in the studies in total. Conclusion Compared with culprit-only revascularization, complete revascularization can partially improve clinical outcomes in patients with AMI with multivessel disease, but its safety needs to be further evaluated by high-quality, large-sample clinical studies.

Keywords

• myocardial infarction|complete revascularization|culprit-only revascularization|systematic review|major adverse cardiac events|cardiovascular diseases