EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology
-
Meta Analysis Comparative Study
A comparison of multivessel and culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients with multivessel disease: a meta-analysis.
Percutaneous revascularisation triage has not been evaluated in randomised controlled trials of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and multivessel disease. As a result, current guidelines are not available. The objective of our meta-analysis was to investigate the use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in culprit and non-culprit vessels. ⋯ No significant difference was demonstrated in the long-term risk of myocardial infarction and mortality between multivessel PCI and culprit vessel PCI. Therefore, multivessel PCI may be a safe and reasonable option for NSTE-ACS patients with multivessel disease.
-
Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus culprit lesion intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results of the ALKK-PCI registry.
Current guidelines recommend immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with cardiogenic shock, despite the lack of randomised trials. We sought to investigate the use and impact on outcome of multivessel PCI in current practice in cardiogenic shock in Germany. ⋯ In current clinical practice in Germany multivessel PCI is used only in one quarter of patients with cardiogenic shock treated with primary PCI. We observed an adverse effect of immediate multivessel PCI. Therefore, a randomised trial is needed to determine the definitive role of multivessel PCI in cardiogenic shock.