Multivessel vs. Culprit Vessel-Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicating by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains controversial. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) compared to culprit vessel-only PCI (CO-PCI) for the treatment, only in patients with STEMI with CS. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted. Studies assessed the efficacy outcomes of short (in-hospital or 30 days)/long-term mortality, cardiac death, myocardial reinfarction, repeat revascularization, and safety outcomes of stroke, bleeding, acute renal failure with MV-PCI vs. CO-PCI in patients with STEMI with CS were included. The publication bias and sensitivity analysis were also performed. Results: A total of 15 studies were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in short- and long-term mortality in patients treated with MV-PCI compared to CO-PCI group [odds ratio (OR) = 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.92-1.48; OR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58-1.28]. Similarly, there were no significant differences in cardiac death (OR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.44-1.00), myocardial reinfarction (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.77-2.00), repeat revascularization (OR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.40-1.42), bleeding (OR = 1.53; 95% CI, 0.53-4.43), or stroke (OR = 1.42; 95% CI, 0.90-2.23) between the two groups. There was a higher risk in acute renal failure (OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) in patients treated with MV-PCI when compared with CO-PCI. Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that there may be no significant benefit for patients with STEMI complicating CS treated with MV-PCI compared with CO-PCI, and patients are at increased risk of developing acute renal failure after MV-PCI intervention.