Multivessel Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in STEMI and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Varunsiri Atti, Yeongjin Gwon, Mahesh Anantha Narayanan, Santiago Garcia, Yader Sandoval, Emmanouil S. Brilakis, Mir B. Basir, Mohit K. Turagam, Akshay Khandelwal, Carlos Mena-Hurtado, Mamas A. Mamas, J. Dawn Abbott, Deepak L. Bhatt, Poonam Velagapudi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

35 Scopus citations


Objectives: The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide a comprehensive evaluation of contemporary randomized trials addressing the efficacy and safety of multivessel versus culprit vessel–only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease. Background: Multivessel coronary artery disease is present in about one-half of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Randomized controlled trials comparing multivessel and culprit vessel–only PCI produced conflicting results regarding the benefits of a multivessel PCI strategy. Methods: A comprehensive search for published randomized controlled trials comparing multivessel PCI with culprit vessel–only PCI was conducted on, PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO Services, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and scientific conference sessions from inception to September 15, 2019. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Primary efficacy outcomes were all-cause mortality and reinfarction. Results: Ten randomized controlled trials were included, representing 7,030 patients: 3,426 underwent multivessel PCI and 3,604 received culprit vessel–only PCI. Compared with culprit vessel–only PCI, multivessel PCI was associated with no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.05) and lower risk for reinfarction (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.95), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.00), and repeat revascularization (RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.44). Major bleeding (RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.67), stroke (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.65 to 2.01), and contrast-induced nephropathy (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.95) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Conclusions: Multivessel PCI was associated with a lower risk for reinfarction, without any difference in all-cause mortality, compared with culprit vessel–only PCI in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1571-1582
Number of pages12
JournalJACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
Issue number13
StatePublished - Jul 13 2020


  • ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
  • cardiovascular mortality
  • contrast-induced nephropathy
  • culprit vessel–only revascularization
  • major adverse cardiac events
  • multivessel coronary artery disease
  • multivessel revascularization
  • reinfarction
  • repeat revascularization

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Multivessel Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in STEMI and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this