Fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization versus culprit-only revascularization in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multi-vessel disease patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BackgroundApproximately 30-50% patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STMEI) were found to have non-infarct-related coronary artery (IRA) disease, which was significantly associated with worse prognosis. However, challenges still remain for these patients: which non-infarct-related lesion should be treated and when should the procedure be performed? The present study aims to investigate Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided complete revascularization (CR) in comparison to culprit-only revascularization (COR) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multi-vessel disease (MVD).MethodsThree appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected from the PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library /CENTRAL databases. 1631 patients (688 patients underwent FFR-guided CR and 943 patients underwent COR) following-up 12-44months was evaluated.ResultsFFR-guided CR significantly reduced major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (OR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.35-0.62, P<0.00001) and ischemia-driven repeat revascularization (OR 0.36, 0.26-0.51, P<0.00001), as compared to COR. However, there is no difference in all-cause mortality (OR 1.24, 0.65-2.35, P=0.51).ConclusionsIn patients with STEMI and MVD, FFR-guided CR is better than COR in terms of MACE and ischemia-driven repeat revascularization, while there are almost similar in all-cause mortality.Trial registrationAll analyses were based on previous published studies, thus no ethical approval and patient consent are required COMPARE-ACUTE trial number NCT01399736; DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI trial number NCT01960933.