Meta-Analysis of the Optimal Percutaneous Revascularization Strategy in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction, Cardiogenic Shock, and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Review uri icon


MeSH Major

  • Coronary Artery Disease
  • Myocardial Infarction
  • Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
  • Practice Guidelines as Topic
  • Shock, Cardiogenic


  • The optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel (MV) coronary artery disease (CAD) who present with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) has not been systematically addressed. Accordingly, we performed a study-level meta-analysis comparing 2 PCI strategies in these patients-infarct-related artery (IRA) only versus MV revascularization. Studies including patients with AMI and MV CAD complicated with CS who received primary PCI were searched from 2000 to 2016. The primary end points were in-hospital/30-day and mid- to long-term (≥6 month) mortality. Fixed and random effects models were used for analysis. Ten studies (9 prospective and 1 retrospective) involving 6,068 patients met our inclusion criteria. IRA-only PCI was the most frequently used revascularization strategy (4,872 patients, 80%), while MV PCI was performed in 1,196 patients (20%). The MV PCI strategy was associated with higher short-term mortality compared with the IRA-only PCI strategy (odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 1.71, p = 0.008). There was no difference in mid- to long-term mortality between MV PCI and IRA-only strategies (odds ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.58, p = 0.94). In conclusion, in patients with AMI and MV CAD complicated by CS, the IRA-only PCI strategy seems to be associated with lower short-term, but not mid- to long-term mortality compared with MV PCI. This finding is different from the revascularization strategy recommended by current professional guidelines and suggests the need for dedicated randomized clinical trials.

publication date

  • May 15, 2017



  • Review



  • eng

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.02.028

PubMed ID

  • 28341358

Additional Document Info

start page

  • 1525

end page

  • 1531


  • 119


  • 10