Milzi Andrea, Benenati Stefano, Landi Antonio, Kahles Florian, Porto Italo, Valgimigli Marco
Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), Via Tesserete 48, CH-6900, Lugano, Switzerland.
Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, University of Italian Switzerland, Lugano, Switzerland.
Clin Res Cardiol. 2025 Jun 30. doi: 10.1007/s00392-025-02693-6.
Coronary multivessel disease (MVD) affects approximately 50% of the patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The optimal revascularization strategy after culprit lesion treatment, including the optimal method to select non-culprit lesions amenable to revascularization, remains unsettled. This study sought to compare culprit-only revascularization, angiography-guided complete revascularization, and physiology-guided complete revascularization in multivessel disease (MVD) patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We searched PUBMED and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials investigating outcomes following culprit-only revascularization, angiography-guided complete revascularization or physiology-guided complete revascularization in patients with ACS and MVD. We identified 14 randomized studies and 11,871 participants with ACS and MVD, of whom 5090 underwent culprit-only intervention, 3641 angiography-guided complete revascularization, 3140 physiology-guided complete revascularization). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were lower in both angiography- (IRR 0.60, 95%-CI 0.46-0.79) or physiology-guided (IRR 0.65, 95%-CI 0.50-0.85) complete revascularization compared with culprit-only revascularization. P-score for treatment ranking was higher for angiography- (0.834) than physiology-guidance (0.666). The estimated effects for all-cause and cardiovascular death vs. culprit-only revascularization were 0.89 (95%-CI 0.61-1.30) and 0.82 (95%-CI 0.48-1.40) for angiography-guidance, and 0.78 (95%-CI 0.55-1.11) and 0.64 (95%-CI 0.40-1.01) for physiology-guidance, respectively. For both all-cause death and cardiovascular death, the highest benefit was estimated for physiology-guidance (P-scores respectively 0.821 and 0.870). In patients with ACS and MVD, both angiography- and physiology-guided complete revascularization are superior to culprit-only revascularization with respect to MACE reduction. Angiography-guidance and physiology-guidance were comparable for future events prevention.
冠状动脉多支血管病变(MVD)影响着约50%的急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)患者。在罪犯病变治疗后的最佳血运重建策略,包括选择适合血运重建的非罪犯病变的最佳方法,仍未确定。本研究旨在比较急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)合并多支血管病变(MVD)患者单纯罪犯病变血运重建、血管造影引导下完全血运重建和生理学引导下完全血运重建的效果。我们在PubMed和科学网中检索了针对急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)合并多支血管病变(MVD)患者单纯罪犯病变血运重建、血管造影引导下完全血运重建或生理学引导下完全血运重建后结局的随机对照试验。我们确定了14项随机研究和11871名急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)合并多支血管病变(MVD)的参与者,其中5090人接受了单纯罪犯病变干预,3641人接受了血管造影引导下的完全血运重建,3140人接受了生理学引导下的完全血运重建。与单纯罪犯病变血运重建相比,血管造影引导下(风险比0.60,95%置信区间0.46 - 0.79)或生理学引导下(风险比0.65,95%置信区间0.50 - 0.85)的完全血运重建的主要不良心脏事件(MACE)发生率更低,但血管造影引导下(0.834)的治疗排序P值高于生理学引导下(0.666)。血管造影引导下全因死亡和心血管死亡相对于单纯罪犯病变血运重建的估计效应分别为0.89(95%置信区间0.61 - 1.30)和0.82(95%置信区间0.48 - 1.40),生理学引导下分别为0.78(95%置信区间0.55 - 1.11)和0.64(95%置信区间0.40 - 1.01)。对于全因死亡和心血管死亡,生理学引导下的获益估计最高(P值分别为0.821和0.870)。在急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)合并多支血管病变(MVD)的患者中,在减少主要不良心脏事件(MACE)方面,血管造影引导和生理学引导的完全血运重建均优于单纯罪犯病变血运重建。在预防未来事件方面,血管造影引导和生理学引导相当。