Abstract
Aims Studies comparing outcomes of multivessel (MV) vs. culprit-vessel (CV) only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during index cardiac catheterization in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiogenic shock (CS) have reported conflicting results. In this systematic review we aim to investigate outcomes with MV vs. CV-only revascularization strategies in patients with acute MI and CS. Methods and results PubMed, Google Scholar, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were queried for studies comparing MV vs. CV PCI in patients with acute MI and CS. Data were extracted and pooled by means of random effects model. Primary outcome was early all-cause mortality (up to 30 days), while the secondary outcomes included late all-cause mortality (mean, 11.4 months), stroke, new renal replacement therapy, reinfarction, repeat revascularization, and bleeding. Pooled odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and number needed to harm (NNH) were calculated. A total of 16 studies enrolling 75 431 patients were included. The MV PCI was associated with higher risk of early mortality [OR 1.17, 95% CI (1.00-1.35); P = 0.04; NNH = 62], stroke [1.15 (1.03-1.29); P = 0.01; NNH = 351], and new renal replacement therapy [1.33 (1.06-1.67); P = 0.01; NNH = 61]; and with lower risk of repeat revascularization [0.61 (0.41-0.89); P = 0.01] when compared with CV PCI. No significant difference was observed in late-term mortality [1.02 (0.84-1.25); P = 0.84], risk of reinfarction [1.13 (0.94-1.35); P = 0.18], or bleeding [1.21 (0.94-1.55); P = 0.13] between groups. Conclusion Among patients with acute MI and CS, MV PCI during index cardiac catheterization was associated with higher risk of early mortality, stroke, and renal replacement therapy.