Meta-analysis comparing culprit vessel only vs multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock
American Journal of Cardiology Nov 01, 2018
Khan MS, et al. - Researchers investigated if percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-infarct coronary arteries (multi-vessel intervention (MVI)) improves outcomes in cardiogenic shock (CS) following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). For this purpose, they analyzed evidence from original studies comparing MVI with culprit-vessel intervention (CVI) in AMI patients with multi-vessel disease (MVD) and CS. These studies were identified from MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus databases. The meta-analysis included 13 studies, consisting of 7,906 patients (nMVI=1,937; nCVI=5,969). Findings revealed no additional reduction in short or long-term mortality with MVI in AMI patients with MVD and CS. Furthermore, use of MVI could result in a higher risk of renal failure.
-
Exclusive Write-ups & Webinars by KOLs
-
Daily Quiz by specialty
-
Paid Market Research Surveys
-
Case discussions, News & Journals' summaries