Meta-analysis Comparing Culprit Vessel Only Versus Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) after a myocardial infarction continues to be associated with high mortality. Whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of noninfarct coronary arteries (multivessel intervention [MVI]) improves outcomes in CS after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains controversial. MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus databases were searched for original studies comparing MVI with culprit-vessel intervention (CVI) in AMI patients with multivessel disease and CS. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated and pooled using a random effects model. Thirteen studies, consisting of 7,906 patients (n_MVI = 1,937; n_CVI = 5,969), were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, the MVI and CVI groups did not differ significantly in the risk of short-term mortality (RR: 1.06 [0.91, 1.23]; p = 0.45; I² = 75.82%), long-term mortality (RR: 0.93 [0.78, 1.11]; p = 0.37; I² = 67.92%), reinfarction (RR: 1.16 [0.75, 1.79]; p = 0.50; I² = 0%), revascularization (RR: 0.84 [0.48, 1.47]; p = 0.54; I² = 83.01%), bleeding (RR: 1.15 [0.96, 1.38]; p = 0.09, I² = 0%), or stroke (RR: 1.29 [0.86, 1.94]; p = 0.80, I² = 0%). However, significantly increased risk of renal failure was seen in the MVI group (RR: 1.35 [1.10, 1.66]; p = 0.004; I² = 0%). On subgroup analysis, it was seen that results from retrospective studies showed higher short-term mortality in the MVI group in comparison with prospective studies (p = 0.003). The certainty in estimates is low due to the largely observational nature of the evidence. In conclusion, MVI provides no additional reduction in short- or long-term mortality in AMI patients with multivessel disease and CS. Additionally, the risk of renal failure may be higher with the use of MVI.